Pick Claude Fable 5.1 for terminal-bench-science agentic research (52.6%, more than double fable 5's 24.7%) or cursorbench 3.2 agentic coding (73.4%). Pick Muse Spark 1.3 for agentic coding with ~20% fewer tool calls and ~25% fewer tokens than muse spark 1.2 or deepswe v1.1 long-horizon software engineering (75.4). On a tight budget at scale, Muse Spark 1.3 is the value pick.
Claude Fable 5.1 (Anthropic) and Muse Spark 1.3 (Meta) are two of the models people most often weigh against each other in 2026. Claude Fable 5.1 is anthropic's September 1, 2026 update to its Fable line for coding and knowledge work, keeping the 1M-token context of Fable 5 while cutting cache-read costs and roughly doubling agentic-research benchmark scores. Muse Spark 1.3 is meta's September 2, 2026 agentic-coding model update, cutting tool calls and token usage versus Muse Spark 1.2 while its highest-reasoning mode remains gated for safety review. Their biggest split is price, and the breakdown below shows exactly how that plays out for your workload.
Key differences
Price: Muse Spark 1.3 is about 8× cheaper on input ($1.25/$4.25 per 1M tokens vs $10/$50 per 1M tokens) — a large enough gap that at scale it can be the single biggest line item in the decision.
Context window: both advertise 1M tokens (~1,500 pages). Tie on paper — test on your own long inputs, since usable recall varies by model.
Specifications
Spec
Claude Fable 5.1
Muse Spark 1.3
Provider
Anthropic (US)
Meta (US)
Released
September 1, 2026
September 2, 2026
Context window
1M tokens (~1,500 pages)
1M tokens (~1,500 pages)
Price (in/out)
$10/$50 per 1M tokens
$1.25/$4.25 per 1M tokens
Open weight?
No — API only
No — API only
Modalities
text, image
text, image, video
SWE-Bench Verified
Not published
Not published
MRCR v2 @ 1M
Not published
98.1%
Who wins what
Terminal-Bench-Science agentic research (52.6%, more than double Fable 5's 24.7%): Claude Fable 5.1 — Muse Spark 1.3 is comparatively weak here — no official SWE-bench Verified score published
CursorBench 3.2 agentic coding (73.4%): Claude Fable 5.1 — Claude Fable 5.1 lists cursorBench 3.2 agentic coding (73.4%) among its strengths; Muse Spark 1.3 does not.
Cache-read pricing cut to a quarter of other Claude models: Claude Fable 5.1 — Claude Fable 5.1 lists cache-read pricing cut to a quarter of other Claude models among its strengths; Muse Spark 1.3 does not.
Agentic coding with ~20% fewer tool calls and ~25% fewer tokens than Muse Spark 1.2: Muse Spark 1.3 — Meta's September 2, 2026 agentic-coding model update, cutting tool calls and token usage versus Muse Spark 1.2 while its highest-reasoning mode remains gated for safety review — and it runs cheaper at $1.25/$4.25 per 1M tokens.
DeepSWE v1.1 long-horizon software engineering (75.4): Muse Spark 1.3 — Meta's September 2, 2026 agentic-coding model update, cutting tool calls and token usage versus Muse Spark 1.2 while its highest-reasoning mode remains gated for safety review — and it is the newer of the two.
Near-perfect long-context retrieval (MRCR v2 512K-1M: 98.1): Muse Spark 1.3 — Muse Spark 1.3 lists near-perfect long-context retrieval (MRCR v2 512K-1M: 98.1) among its strengths; Claude Fable 5.1 does not.
Lowest cost at scale: Muse Spark 1.3 — At $1.25/$4.25 per 1M tokens, it is the cheaper of the two — the gap dominates the bill on high-volume workloads.
Which should you pick?
A cost-sensitive startup shipping high volume: Muse Spark 1.3 — At $1.25/$4.25 per 1M tokens it undercuts Claude Fable 5.1, and on millions of tokens that margin decides the monthly bill.
Anyone whose priority is terminal-bench-science agentic research (52.6%, more than double fable 5's 24.7%): Claude Fable 5.1 — It is specifically built for that.
Anyone whose priority is agentic coding with ~20% fewer tool calls and ~25% fewer tokens than muse spark 1.2: Muse Spark 1.3 — That is its strongest area.
Claude Fable 5.1: where it fits
Anthropic's September 1, 2026 update to its Fable line for coding and knowledge work, keeping the 1M-token context of Fable 5 while cutting cache-read costs and roughly doubling agentic-research benchmark scores. Released September 1, 2026 by Anthropic, it is built for terminal-Bench-Science agentic research (52.6%, more than double Fable 5's 24.7%), cursorBench 3.2 agentic coding (73.4%), cache-read pricing cut to a quarter of other Claude models, and long, multistep, document-heavy professional work with 1M-token context.
Its trade-offs are real: anthropic has not published an official SWE-bench Verified score for this model, restricted Mythos 5.1 variant outscores it on some benchmarks due to lighter safeguards (Terminal-Bench 4.0: 60.9% vs 55.8%), and closed weights, no self-hosting option. At $10 in / $50 out per million tokens, it sits in the premium price band.
Muse Spark 1.3: where it fits
Meta's September 2, 2026 agentic-coding model update, cutting tool calls and token usage versus Muse Spark 1.2 while its highest-reasoning mode remains gated for safety review. Released September 2, 2026 by Meta, it is built for agentic coding with ~20% fewer tool calls and ~25% fewer tokens than Muse Spark 1.2, deepSWE v1.1 long-horizon software engineering (75.4), near-perfect long-context retrieval (MRCR v2 512K-1M: 98.1), and ranks third overall on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index (score 61, xhigh variant; the limited-preview max variant scores 62) - behind only Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Opus 5.
Its trade-offs: strongest 'max' reasoning configuration still gated pending additional safety testing, not yet open-weight, despite Meta roadmapping a future Muse Spark weights release, and no official SWE-bench Verified score published. At $1.25 in / $4.25 out per million tokens, it sits in the mid price band.
The bottom line for this matchup
Claude Fable 5.1 and Muse Spark 1.3 overlap enough that the right pick depends on your specific job. Muse Spark 1.3 costs less per token; and each leads in its own area — Claude Fable 5.1 for terminal-bench-science agentic research (52.6%, more than double fable 5's 24.7%), Muse Spark 1.3 for agentic coding with ~20% fewer tool calls and ~25% fewer tokens than muse spark 1.2. Rather than crowning one, run the same hard task through both once and let the results decide.
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Fable 5.1 or Muse Spark 1.3 better for coding?
Public SWE-Bench figures are not available for either model, so the honest test is your own repository — run an identical real bug through both. By design, Claude Fable 5.1 leans toward terminal-bench-science agentic research (52.6%, more than double fable 5's 24.7%) while Muse Spark 1.3 leans toward agentic coding with ~20% fewer tool calls and ~25% fewer tokens than muse spark 1.2, and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.
Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5.1 or Muse Spark 1.3?
Muse Spark 1.3 is cheaper — $10/$50 per 1M tokens vs $1.25/$4.25 per 1M tokens, roughly 8× apart on input.
Which has the bigger context window?
Both advertise 1M tokens (~1,500 pages). Remember advertised ≠ usable: recall typically degrades before the ceiling.
Can I use both Claude Fable 5.1 and Muse Spark 1.3 together?
Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you Claude Fable 5.1, Muse Spark 1.3 and 40+ others under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day), so you can draft with one and cross-check with the other instead of buying two subscriptions.
Which is newer, Claude Fable 5.1 or Muse Spark 1.3?
Muse Spark 1.3 — released September 2, 2026, about 1 days after Claude Fable 5.1.
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Muse Spark 1.3
Anthropic · US | Meta · US · Updated June 2026
Quick verdict
Pick Claude Fable 5.1 for terminal-bench-science agentic research (52.6%, more than double fable 5's 24.7%) or cursorbench 3.2 agentic coding (73.4%). Pick Muse Spark 1.3 for agentic coding with ~20% fewer tool calls and ~25% fewer tokens than muse spark 1.2 or deepswe v1.1 long-horizon software engineering (75.4). On a tight budget at scale, Muse Spark 1.3 is the value pick.
Claude Fable 5.1 (Anthropic) and Muse Spark 1.3 (Meta) are two of the models people most often weigh against each other in 2026. Claude Fable 5.1 is anthropic's September 1, 2026 update to its Fable line for coding and knowledge work, keeping the 1M-token context of Fable 5 while cutting cache-read costs and roughly doubling agentic-research benchmark scores. Muse Spark 1.3 is meta's September 2, 2026 agentic-coding model update, cutting tool calls and token usage versus Muse Spark 1.2 while its highest-reasoning mode remains gated for safety review. Their biggest split is price, and the breakdown below shows exactly how that plays out for your workload.
Key differences at a glance
▸Price: Muse Spark 1.3 is about 8× cheaper on input ($1.25/$4.25 per 1M tokens vs $10/$50 per 1M tokens) — a large enough gap that at scale it can be the single biggest line item in the decision.
▸Context window: both advertise 1M tokens (~1,500 pages). Tie on paper — test on your own long inputs, since usable recall varies by model.
Side-by-side specs
Spec
Claude Fable 5.1
Muse Spark 1.3
Provider
Anthropic (US)
Meta (US)
Released
September 1, 2026
September 2, 2026
Context window
1M tokens (~1,500 pages)
1M tokens (~1,500 pages)
Price (in/out)
$10/$50 per 1M tokens
$1.25/$4.25 per 1M tokens
Open weight?
No — API only
No — API only
Modalities
text, image
text, image, video
SWE-Bench Verified
Not published
Not published
MRCR v2 @ 1M
Not published
98.1%
Who wins what
Terminal-Bench-Science agentic research (52.6%, more than double Fable 5's 24.7%)
Claude Fable 5.1
Muse Spark 1.3 is comparatively weak here — no official SWE-bench Verified score published
CursorBench 3.2 agentic coding (73.4%)
Claude Fable 5.1
Claude Fable 5.1 lists cursorBench 3.2 agentic coding (73.4%) among its strengths; Muse Spark 1.3 does not.
Cache-read pricing cut to a quarter of other Claude models
Claude Fable 5.1
Claude Fable 5.1 lists cache-read pricing cut to a quarter of other Claude models among its strengths; Muse Spark 1.3 does not.
Agentic coding with ~20% fewer tool calls and ~25% fewer tokens than Muse Spark 1.2
Muse Spark 1.3
Meta's September 2, 2026 agentic-coding model update, cutting tool calls and token usage versus Muse Spark 1.2 while its highest-reasoning mode remains gated for safety review — and it runs cheaper at $1.25/$4.25 per 1M tokens.
Meta's September 2, 2026 agentic-coding model update, cutting tool calls and token usage versus Muse Spark 1.2 while its highest-reasoning mode remains gated for safety review — and it is the newer of the two.
Muse Spark 1.3 lists near-perfect long-context retrieval (MRCR v2 512K-1M: 98.1) among its strengths; Claude Fable 5.1 does not.
Lowest cost at scale
Muse Spark 1.3
At $1.25/$4.25 per 1M tokens, it is the cheaper of the two — the gap dominates the bill on high-volume workloads.
Which should you pick?
A cost-sensitive startup shipping high volume
→ Muse Spark 1.3
At $1.25/$4.25 per 1M tokens it undercuts Claude Fable 5.1, and on millions of tokens that margin decides the monthly bill.
Anyone whose priority is terminal-bench-science agentic research (52.6%, more than double fable 5's 24.7%)
→ Claude Fable 5.1
It is specifically built for that.
Anyone whose priority is agentic coding with ~20% fewer tool calls and ~25% fewer tokens than muse spark 1.2
→ Muse Spark 1.3
That is its strongest area.
Claude Fable 5.1: where it fits
Anthropic's September 1, 2026 update to its Fable line for coding and knowledge work, keeping the 1M-token context of Fable 5 while cutting cache-read costs and roughly doubling agentic-research benchmark scores. Released September 1, 2026 by Anthropic, it is built for terminal-Bench-Science agentic research (52.6%, more than double Fable 5's 24.7%), cursorBench 3.2 agentic coding (73.4%), cache-read pricing cut to a quarter of other Claude models, and long, multistep, document-heavy professional work with 1M-token context.
Its trade-offs are real: anthropic has not published an official SWE-bench Verified score for this model, restricted Mythos 5.1 variant outscores it on some benchmarks due to lighter safeguards (Terminal-Bench 4.0: 60.9% vs 55.8%), and closed weights, no self-hosting option. At $10 in / $50 out per million tokens, it sits in the premium price band.
Muse Spark 1.3: where it fits
Meta's September 2, 2026 agentic-coding model update, cutting tool calls and token usage versus Muse Spark 1.2 while its highest-reasoning mode remains gated for safety review. Released September 2, 2026 by Meta, it is built for agentic coding with ~20% fewer tool calls and ~25% fewer tokens than Muse Spark 1.2, deepSWE v1.1 long-horizon software engineering (75.4), near-perfect long-context retrieval (MRCR v2 512K-1M: 98.1), and ranks third overall on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index (score 61, xhigh variant; the limited-preview max variant scores 62) - behind only Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Opus 5.
Its trade-offs: strongest 'max' reasoning configuration still gated pending additional safety testing, not yet open-weight, despite Meta roadmapping a future Muse Spark weights release, and no official SWE-bench Verified score published. At $1.25 in / $4.25 out per million tokens, it sits in the mid price band.
The bottom line for this matchup
Claude Fable 5.1 and Muse Spark 1.3 overlap enough that the right pick depends on your specific job. Muse Spark 1.3 costs less per token; and each leads in its own area — Claude Fable 5.1 for terminal-bench-science agentic research (52.6%, more than double fable 5's 24.7%), Muse Spark 1.3 for agentic coding with ~20% fewer tool calls and ~25% fewer tokens than muse spark 1.2. Rather than crowning one, run the same hard task through both once and let the results decide.
Want both Claude Fable 5.1 and Muse Spark 1.3 without two subscriptions? LumiChats gives you these plus 40+ models under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day) — draft with one, cross-check with the other.
Is Claude Fable 5.1 or Muse Spark 1.3 better for coding?
Public SWE-Bench figures are not available for either model, so the honest test is your own repository — run an identical real bug through both. By design, Claude Fable 5.1 leans toward terminal-bench-science agentic research (52.6%, more than double fable 5's 24.7%) while Muse Spark 1.3 leans toward agentic coding with ~20% fewer tool calls and ~25% fewer tokens than muse spark 1.2, and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.
Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5.1 or Muse Spark 1.3?
Muse Spark 1.3 is cheaper — $10/$50 per 1M tokens vs $1.25/$4.25 per 1M tokens, roughly 8× apart on input.
Which has the bigger context window?
Both advertise 1M tokens (~1,500 pages). Remember advertised ≠ usable: recall typically degrades before the ceiling.
Can I use both Claude Fable 5.1 and Muse Spark 1.3 together?
Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you Claude Fable 5.1, Muse Spark 1.3 and 40+ others under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day), so you can draft with one and cross-check with the other instead of buying two subscriptions.
Which is newer, Claude Fable 5.1 or Muse Spark 1.3?
Muse Spark 1.3 — released September 2, 2026, about 1 days after Claude Fable 5.1.
Specifications and benchmarks reflect publicly reported figures as of June 2026 and may change as providers release updates. Always verify on your own workload.