gpt-oss-120b vs Muse Spark 1.1

OpenAI · US  |  Meta · US · Updated June 2026

Quick verdict

Pick gpt-oss-120b for self-hostable on a single 80gb h100 gpu via mxfp4 or configurable reasoning depth (low/medium/high). 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. Choose gpt-oss-120b if you need self-hosting or data privacy; Muse Spark 1.1 if you want a managed API.

gpt-oss-120b (OpenAI) and Muse Spark 1.1 (Meta) are two of the models people most often weigh against each other in 2026. gpt-oss-120b is openAI's open-weight 117B-parameter MoE reasoning model (5.1B active) that runs on a single 80GB GPU and approaches o4-mini on reasoning, coding, and tool use. 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, context window and open vs. closed weights — each quantified below from the models' real specs.

Key differences at a glance

Side-by-side specs

Specgpt-oss-120bMuse Spark 1.1
ProviderOpenAI (US) Meta (US)
ReleasedAugust 5, 2025 July 9, 2026
Context window131K (~197 pages) 1M (~1,573 pages)
Price (in/out)Open weight (self-host / free) $1.25/$4.25 per 1M tokens
Open weight?Yes — self-hostable No — API only
Modalitiestext, code text, image, video, code
SWE-Bench Verified62.4% Not published
MRCR v2 @ 1MNot published 54.1%

Who wins what

Self-hostable on a single 80GB H100 GPU via MXFP4

gpt-oss-120b

Open weights make this possible at all — Muse Spark 1.1 is API-only, so it cannot leave the vendor's servers.

Configurable reasoning depth (low/medium/high)

gpt-oss-120b

OpenAI's open-weight 117B-parameter MoE reasoning model (5.1B active) that runs on a single 80GB GPU and approaches o4-mini on reasoning, coding, and tool use — and its weights are open while Muse Spark 1.1 is API-only.

Agentic tool use, function calling, and code execution

gpt-oss-120b

gpt-oss-120b lists agentic tool use, function calling, and code execution among its strengths; Muse Spark 1.1 does not.

Scaled tool use — 88.1 on MCP Atlas, ahead of Opus 4.8 and GPT-5.5 (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.

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 is the newer of the two.

Professional agentic work — 54.7 on JobBench, a wide margin over rivals (vendor-reported)

Muse Spark 1.1

Muse Spark 1.1 lists professional agentic work — 54.7 on JobBench, a wide margin over rivals (vendor-reported) among its strengths; gpt-oss-120b does not.

Lowest cost at scale

gpt-oss-120b

Its weights are open, so at volume you pay for your own hardware instead of Muse Spark 1.1's $1.25/$4.25 per 1M tokens.

Largest single-prompt input

Muse Spark 1.1

Its 1M window is about 8× larger than gpt-oss-120b's 131K, fitting roughly 1,573 pages in one prompt.

Which should you pick?

A cost-sensitive startup shipping high volume

→ gpt-oss-120b

At Open weight (self-host / free) it undercuts Muse Spark 1.1, 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.

A team with data-privacy or self-hosting needs

→ gpt-oss-120b

Open weights let you run it on your own hardware; Muse Spark 1.1 is API-only.

Anyone whose priority is self-hostable on a single 80gb h100 gpu via mxfp4

→ gpt-oss-120b

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.

gpt-oss-120b: where it fits

OpenAI's open-weight 117B-parameter MoE reasoning model (5.1B active) that runs on a single 80GB GPU and approaches o4-mini on reasoning, coding, and tool use. Released August 5, 2025 by OpenAI, it is built for self-hostable on a single 80GB H100 GPU via MXFP4, configurable reasoning depth (low/medium/high), agentic tool use, function calling, and code execution, and full chain-of-thought visibility for debugging.

Its trade-offs are real: text-only, no image, audio, or video input, and 131K context and 5.1B active params trail the largest frontier closed models. As an open-weight model, its running cost is your own hardware rather than a per-token fee.

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

The defining split here is open vs. closed. gpt-oss-120b gives you weights you control — self-host it, fine-tune it, keep data in-house, pay only for hardware. Muse Spark 1.1 gives you a managed, always-updated API with no infrastructure to run. Teams with GPUs, privacy requirements, or huge volume often favour the open model; teams that want zero ops and the latest capabilities favour the closed one. Capability is close enough that this operational question, not the benchmark, usually decides it.

Want both gpt-oss-120b 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.

See pricing

Frequently asked questions

Is gpt-oss-120b 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, gpt-oss-120b leans toward self-hostable on a single 80gb h100 gpu via mxfp4 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, gpt-oss-120b or Muse Spark 1.1?

gpt-oss-120b is open-weight, so self-hosting means no per-token fee (you pay for hardware instead), while Muse Spark 1.1 is API-metered at $1.25/$4.25 per 1M tokens. For most teams without GPUs, the API model is cheaper to start; at very high volume, self-hosting can win.

Which has the bigger context window?

Muse Spark 1.1 — 1M vs 131K, about 8× larger. Useful only if the model actually reasons over the full window, which not all do.

Can I use both gpt-oss-120b and Muse Spark 1.1 together?

Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you gpt-oss-120b, 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, gpt-oss-120b or Muse Spark 1.1?

Muse Spark 1.1 — released July 9, 2026, about 11 months after gpt-oss-120b.

Related comparisons

Specifications and benchmarks reflect publicly reported figures as of June 2026 and may change as providers release updates. Always verify on your own workload.