Pick Claude Sonnet 4.5 for agentic coding — 77.2% on swe-bench verified, the best score any model had posted at its launch or computer use and gui automation (61.4% osworld at launch). Pick Muse Spark 1.1 for scaled tool use — 88.1 on mcp atlas, ahead of opus 4.8 and gpt-5.5 (vendor-reported) or subagent orchestration — trained to run as a main agent or a subagent that escalates when stuck. On a tight budget at scale, Muse Spark 1.1 is the value pick.
Claude Sonnet 4.5 (Anthropic) and Muse Spark 1.1 (Meta) are two of the models people most often weigh against each other in 2026. Claude Sonnet 4.5 is september 2025's coding state of the art at $3/$15 — still supported, but 200K-capped and twice superseded. Muse Spark 1.1 is meta's first paid, closed-weight frontier model — class-leading agentic tool use at a quarter of rivals' price, but it trails on coding. They diverge most on price and context window — each quantified below from the models' real specs.
Key differences
Price: Muse Spark 1.1 is about 2.4× cheaper on input ($1.25/$4.25 per 1M tokens vs $3/$15 per 1M tokens) — meaningful once you are processing millions of tokens a month.
Context window: Muse Spark 1.1 holds 5.2× more — 1M (~1,573 pages) vs 200K (~300 pages). But effective recall usually fades long before the advertised ceiling, so the bigger number only helps if the model reasons over it.
Recency: Muse Spark 1.1 is the newer model by about 9 months (released July 9, 2026), usually meaning fresher training data and capabilities.
Specifications
Spec
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Muse Spark 1.1
Provider
Anthropic (US)
Meta (US)
Released
September 29, 2025
July 9, 2026
Context window
200K (~300 pages)
1M (~1,573 pages)
Price (in/out)
$3/$15 per 1M tokens
$1.25/$4.25 per 1M tokens
Open weight?
No — API only
No — API only
Modalities
text, image, code
text, image, video, code
SWE-Bench Verified
77.2%
Not published
MRCR v2 @ 1M
Not published
54.1%
Who wins what
Agentic coding — 77.2% on SWE-Bench Verified, the best score any model had posted at its launch: Claude Sonnet 4.5 — Muse Spark 1.1 is comparatively weak here — not the coding leader its launch framing implied — Meta's own report concedes it trails Opus 4.8 and GPT-5.5 on every coding benchmark
Computer use and GUI automation (61.4% OSWorld at launch): Claude Sonnet 4.5 — Claude Sonnet 4.5 lists computer use and GUI automation (61.4% OSWorld at launch) among its strengths; Muse Spark 1.1 does not.
Long-horizon autonomy — Anthropic reported 30+ hours of sustained focus on multi-step tasks: Claude Sonnet 4.5 — Muse Spark 1.1 is comparatively weak here — uS-only public preview behind a waitlist, and every benchmark is vendor-reported with no third-party replication
Scaled tool use — 88.1 on MCP Atlas, ahead of Opus 4.8 and GPT-5.5 (vendor-reported): Muse Spark 1.1 — At $1.25/$4.25 per 1M tokens it undercuts Claude Sonnet 4.5 ($3/$15 per 1M tokens), and that gap compounds at volume.
Subagent orchestration — trained to run as a main agent or a subagent that escalates when stuck: Muse Spark 1.1 — Meta's first paid, closed-weight frontier model — class-leading agentic tool use at a quarter of rivals' price, but it trails on coding — and it runs cheaper at $1.25/$4.25 per 1M tokens.
Professional agentic work — 54.7 on JobBench, a wide margin over rivals (vendor-reported): Muse Spark 1.1 — Meta's first paid, closed-weight frontier model — class-leading agentic tool use at a quarter of rivals' price, but it trails on coding — and it carries the larger 1M context.
Lowest cost at scale: Muse Spark 1.1 — At $1.25/$4.25 per 1M tokens, it is the cheaper of the two — the gap dominates the bill on high-volume workloads.
Largest single-prompt input: Muse Spark 1.1 — Its 1M window is about 5.2× larger than Claude Sonnet 4.5's 200K, fitting roughly 1,573 pages in one prompt.
Which should you pick?
A cost-sensitive startup shipping high volume: Muse Spark 1.1 — At $1.25/$4.25 per 1M tokens it undercuts Claude Sonnet 4.5, and on millions of tokens that margin decides the monthly bill.
Someone analysing very long documents or codebases: Muse Spark 1.1 — Larger 1M window fits more in one prompt.
Anyone whose priority is agentic coding — 77.2% on swe-bench verified, the best score any model had posted at its launch: Claude Sonnet 4.5 — It is specifically built for that.
Anyone whose priority is scaled tool use — 88.1 on mcp atlas, ahead of opus 4.8 and gpt-5.5 (vendor-reported): Muse Spark 1.1 — That is its strongest area.
Claude Sonnet 4.5: where it fits
September 2025's coding state of the art at $3/$15 — still supported, but 200K-capped and twice superseded. Released September 29, 2025 by Anthropic, it is built for agentic coding — 77.2% on SWE-Bench Verified, the best score any model had posted at its launch, computer use and GUI automation (61.4% OSWorld at launch), long-horizon autonomy — Anthropic reported 30+ hours of sustained focus on multi-step tasks, and tracking its own remaining token budget natively, which few models do.
Its trade-offs are real: superseded twice — Sonnet 4.6 and Sonnet 5 match or beat it at the same or lower price, capped at 200K since Anthropic retired its 1M beta in April 2026, while its successors ship 1M as standard, and missing the modern API surface: no adaptive thinking, no effort control, and half the max output of newer Sonnets. At $3 in / $15 out per million tokens, it sits in the mid price band.
Muse Spark 1.1: where it fits
Meta's first paid, closed-weight frontier model — class-leading agentic tool use at a quarter of rivals' price, but it trails on coding. Released July 9, 2026 by Meta, it is built for scaled tool use — 88.1 on MCP Atlas, ahead of Opus 4.8 and GPT-5.5 (vendor-reported), subagent orchestration — trained to run as a main agent or a subagent that escalates when stuck, professional agentic work — 54.7 on JobBench, a wide margin over rivals (vendor-reported), and managing its own context: it compacts the 1M window mid-run instead of relying on external windowing.
Its trade-offs: not the coding leader its launch framing implied — Meta's own report concedes it trails Opus 4.8 and GPT-5.5 on every coding benchmark, the 1M window oversells its recall: 54.1 on MRCR v2 at 1M against GPT-5.5's 74.0, closed weights end the free, self-hostable Llama path — this is the first model Meta has charged for, and uS-only public preview behind a waitlist, and every benchmark is vendor-reported with no third-party replication. At $1.25 in / $4.25 out per million tokens, it sits in the mid price band.
The bottom line for this matchup
Claude Sonnet 4.5 and Muse Spark 1.1 overlap enough that the right pick depends on your specific job. Muse Spark 1.1 costs less per token; Muse Spark 1.1 holds the larger context; and each leads in its own area — Claude Sonnet 4.5 for agentic coding — 77.2% on swe-bench verified, the best score any model had posted at its launch, Muse Spark 1.1 for scaled tool use — 88.1 on mcp atlas, ahead of opus 4.8 and gpt-5.5 (vendor-reported). Rather than crowning one, run the same hard task through both once and let the results decide.
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Muse Spark 1.1 better for coding?
Public SWE-Bench figures are not available for Muse Spark 1.1, so the honest test is your own repository — run an identical real bug through both. By design, Claude Sonnet 4.5 leans toward agentic coding — 77.2% on swe-bench verified, the best score any model had posted at its launch while Muse Spark 1.1 leans toward scaled tool use — 88.1 on mcp atlas, ahead of opus 4.8 and gpt-5.5 (vendor-reported), and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.
Which is cheaper, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Muse Spark 1.1?
Muse Spark 1.1 is cheaper — $3/$15 per 1M tokens vs $1.25/$4.25 per 1M tokens, roughly 2.4× apart on input.
Which has the bigger context window?
Muse Spark 1.1 — 1M vs 200K, about 5.2× larger. Useful only if the model actually reasons over the full window, which not all do.
Can I use both Claude Sonnet 4.5 and Muse Spark 1.1 together?
Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you Claude Sonnet 4.5, Muse Spark 1.1 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 Sonnet 4.5 or Muse Spark 1.1?
Muse Spark 1.1 — released July 9, 2026, about 9 months after Claude Sonnet 4.5.
Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Muse Spark 1.1
Anthropic · US | Meta · US · Updated June 2026
Quick verdict
Pick Claude Sonnet 4.5 for agentic coding — 77.2% on swe-bench verified, the best score any model had posted at its launch or computer use and gui automation (61.4% osworld at launch). Pick Muse Spark 1.1 for scaled tool use — 88.1 on mcp atlas, ahead of opus 4.8 and gpt-5.5 (vendor-reported) or subagent orchestration — trained to run as a main agent or a subagent that escalates when stuck. On a tight budget at scale, Muse Spark 1.1 is the value pick.
Claude Sonnet 4.5 (Anthropic) and Muse Spark 1.1 (Meta) are two of the models people most often weigh against each other in 2026. Claude Sonnet 4.5 is september 2025's coding state of the art at $3/$15 — still supported, but 200K-capped and twice superseded. Muse Spark 1.1 is meta's first paid, closed-weight frontier model — class-leading agentic tool use at a quarter of rivals' price, but it trails on coding. They diverge most on price and context window — each quantified below from the models' real specs.
Key differences at a glance
▸Price: Muse Spark 1.1 is about 2.4× cheaper on input ($1.25/$4.25 per 1M tokens vs $3/$15 per 1M tokens) — meaningful once you are processing millions of tokens a month.
▸Context window: Muse Spark 1.1 holds 5.2× more — 1M (~1,573 pages) vs 200K (~300 pages). But effective recall usually fades long before the advertised ceiling, so the bigger number only helps if the model reasons over it.
▸Recency: Muse Spark 1.1 is the newer model by about 9 months (released July 9, 2026), usually meaning fresher training data and capabilities.
Side-by-side specs
Spec
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Muse Spark 1.1
Provider
Anthropic (US)
Meta (US)
Released
September 29, 2025
July 9, 2026
Context window
200K (~300 pages)
1M (~1,573 pages)
Price (in/out)
$3/$15 per 1M tokens
$1.25/$4.25 per 1M tokens
Open weight?
No — API only
No — API only
Modalities
text, image, code
text, image, video, code
SWE-Bench Verified
77.2%
Not published
MRCR v2 @ 1M
Not published
54.1%
Who wins what
Agentic coding — 77.2% on SWE-Bench Verified, the best score any model had posted at its launch
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Muse Spark 1.1 is comparatively weak here — not the coding leader its launch framing implied — Meta's own report concedes it trails Opus 4.8 and GPT-5.5 on every coding benchmark
Computer use and GUI automation (61.4% OSWorld at launch)
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Claude Sonnet 4.5 lists computer use and GUI automation (61.4% OSWorld at launch) among its strengths; Muse Spark 1.1 does not.
Long-horizon autonomy — Anthropic reported 30+ hours of sustained focus on multi-step tasks
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Muse Spark 1.1 is comparatively weak here — uS-only public preview behind a waitlist, and every benchmark is vendor-reported with no third-party replication
Scaled tool use — 88.1 on MCP Atlas, ahead of Opus 4.8 and GPT-5.5 (vendor-reported)
Muse Spark 1.1
At $1.25/$4.25 per 1M tokens it undercuts Claude Sonnet 4.5 ($3/$15 per 1M tokens), and that gap compounds at volume.
Subagent orchestration — trained to run as a main agent or a subagent that escalates when stuck
Muse Spark 1.1
Meta's first paid, closed-weight frontier model — class-leading agentic tool use at a quarter of rivals' price, but it trails on coding — and it runs cheaper at $1.25/$4.25 per 1M tokens.
Professional agentic work — 54.7 on JobBench, a wide margin over rivals (vendor-reported)
Muse Spark 1.1
Meta's first paid, closed-weight frontier model — class-leading agentic tool use at a quarter of rivals' price, but it trails on coding — and it carries the larger 1M context.
Lowest cost at scale
Muse Spark 1.1
At $1.25/$4.25 per 1M tokens, it is the cheaper of the two — the gap dominates the bill on high-volume workloads.
Largest single-prompt input
Muse Spark 1.1
Its 1M window is about 5.2× larger than Claude Sonnet 4.5's 200K, fitting roughly 1,573 pages in one prompt.
Which should you pick?
A cost-sensitive startup shipping high volume
→ Muse Spark 1.1
At $1.25/$4.25 per 1M tokens it undercuts Claude Sonnet 4.5, and on millions of tokens that margin decides the monthly bill.
Someone analysing very long documents or codebases
→ Muse Spark 1.1
Larger 1M window fits more in one prompt.
Anyone whose priority is agentic coding — 77.2% on swe-bench verified, the best score any model had posted at its launch
→ Claude Sonnet 4.5
It is specifically built for that.
Anyone whose priority is scaled tool use — 88.1 on mcp atlas, ahead of opus 4.8 and gpt-5.5 (vendor-reported)
→ Muse Spark 1.1
That is its strongest area.
Claude Sonnet 4.5: where it fits
September 2025's coding state of the art at $3/$15 — still supported, but 200K-capped and twice superseded. Released September 29, 2025 by Anthropic, it is built for agentic coding — 77.2% on SWE-Bench Verified, the best score any model had posted at its launch, computer use and GUI automation (61.4% OSWorld at launch), long-horizon autonomy — Anthropic reported 30+ hours of sustained focus on multi-step tasks, and tracking its own remaining token budget natively, which few models do.
Its trade-offs are real: superseded twice — Sonnet 4.6 and Sonnet 5 match or beat it at the same or lower price, capped at 200K since Anthropic retired its 1M beta in April 2026, while its successors ship 1M as standard, and missing the modern API surface: no adaptive thinking, no effort control, and half the max output of newer Sonnets. At $3 in / $15 out per million tokens, it sits in the mid price band.
Muse Spark 1.1: where it fits
Meta's first paid, closed-weight frontier model — class-leading agentic tool use at a quarter of rivals' price, but it trails on coding. Released July 9, 2026 by Meta, it is built for scaled tool use — 88.1 on MCP Atlas, ahead of Opus 4.8 and GPT-5.5 (vendor-reported), subagent orchestration — trained to run as a main agent or a subagent that escalates when stuck, professional agentic work — 54.7 on JobBench, a wide margin over rivals (vendor-reported), and managing its own context: it compacts the 1M window mid-run instead of relying on external windowing.
Its trade-offs: not the coding leader its launch framing implied — Meta's own report concedes it trails Opus 4.8 and GPT-5.5 on every coding benchmark, the 1M window oversells its recall: 54.1 on MRCR v2 at 1M against GPT-5.5's 74.0, closed weights end the free, self-hostable Llama path — this is the first model Meta has charged for, and uS-only public preview behind a waitlist, and every benchmark is vendor-reported with no third-party replication. At $1.25 in / $4.25 out per million tokens, it sits in the mid price band.
The bottom line for this matchup
Claude Sonnet 4.5 and Muse Spark 1.1 overlap enough that the right pick depends on your specific job. Muse Spark 1.1 costs less per token; Muse Spark 1.1 holds the larger context; and each leads in its own area — Claude Sonnet 4.5 for agentic coding — 77.2% on swe-bench verified, the best score any model had posted at its launch, Muse Spark 1.1 for scaled tool use — 88.1 on mcp atlas, ahead of opus 4.8 and gpt-5.5 (vendor-reported). Rather than crowning one, run the same hard task through both once and let the results decide.
Want both Claude Sonnet 4.5 and Muse Spark 1.1 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 Sonnet 4.5 or Muse Spark 1.1 better for coding?
Public SWE-Bench figures are not available for Muse Spark 1.1, so the honest test is your own repository — run an identical real bug through both. By design, Claude Sonnet 4.5 leans toward agentic coding — 77.2% on swe-bench verified, the best score any model had posted at its launch while Muse Spark 1.1 leans toward scaled tool use — 88.1 on mcp atlas, ahead of opus 4.8 and gpt-5.5 (vendor-reported), and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.
Which is cheaper, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Muse Spark 1.1?
Muse Spark 1.1 is cheaper — $3/$15 per 1M tokens vs $1.25/$4.25 per 1M tokens, roughly 2.4× apart on input.
Which has the bigger context window?
Muse Spark 1.1 — 1M vs 200K, about 5.2× larger. Useful only if the model actually reasons over the full window, which not all do.
Can I use both Claude Sonnet 4.5 and Muse Spark 1.1 together?
Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you Claude Sonnet 4.5, Muse Spark 1.1 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 Sonnet 4.5 or Muse Spark 1.1?
Muse Spark 1.1 — released July 9, 2026, about 9 months after Claude Sonnet 4.5.
Specifications and benchmarks reflect publicly reported figures as of June 2026 and may change as providers release updates. Always verify on your own workload.