Muse Spark 1.1 vs Muse Wonder 1.0
Meta · US | Meta · US · Updated June 2026
Quick verdict
Both are Meta models. Muse Wonder 1.0 is the newer, generally stronger default; reach for Muse Spark 1.1 when its lower price or a specific cost or latency profile matters more than the latest capabilities.
Muse Spark 1.1 and Muse Wonder 1.0 are both Meta models, so the real question is not which lab to trust but which tier fits your workload and budget. 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. Muse Wonder 1.0 is meta Superintelligence Labs' October 12, 2026 debut frontier model — distinct from Muse Spark, scoring 52 on the independent Artificial Analysis Index with a 1M-token, four-modality context window. Since both come from the same lab, the comparison below focuses on the tier-and-cost trade-offs that actually separate them.
Key differences at a glance
- ▸Price: Muse Spark 1.1 is about 3.2× cheaper on input ($1.25/$4.25 per 1M tokens vs $4/$20 per 1M tokens) — meaningful once you are processing millions of tokens a month.
- ▸Context window: both advertise 1M (~1,573 pages). Tie on paper — test on your own long inputs, since usable recall varies by model.
- ▸Recency: Muse Wonder 1.0 is the newer model by about 3 months (released October 12, 2026), usually meaning fresher training data and capabilities.
Side-by-side specs
| Spec | Muse Spark 1.1 | Muse Wonder 1.0 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta (US) | Meta (US) |
| Released | July 9, 2026 | October 12, 2026 |
| Context window | 1M (~1,573 pages) | 1M tokens (~1,573 pages) |
| Price (in/out) | $1.25/$4.25 per 1M tokens | $4/$20 per 1M tokens |
| Open weight? | No — API only | No — API only |
| Modalities | text, image, video, code | text, image, video, audio |
| SWE-Bench Verified | Not published | Not published |
| MRCR v2 @ 1M | 54.1% | Not published |
Who wins what
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 Muse Wonder 1.0 ($4/$20 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
Muse Wonder 1.0 is comparatively weak here — benchmark comparisons against Opus 5.5 and GPT-6 Astra are Meta's own self-reported figures
Meta Superintelligence Labs' first frontier-class reasoning model — a new line distinct from the agentic-coding-focused Muse Spark family
Muse Wonder 1.0
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
Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index score of 52 (a gated 'Wonder Full' subscription variant scores 56, tied with Claude Sonnet 5.5, behind only Opus 5.5 at 58)
Muse Wonder 1.0
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
78.8% on DeepSWE v1.1 long-horizon coding, ahead of both Claude Opus 5.5 (74.2%) and GPT-6 Astra (74.1%)
Muse Wonder 1.0
Meta Superintelligence Labs' October 12, 2026 debut frontier model — distinct from Muse Spark, scoring 52 on the independent Artificial Analysis Index with a 1M-token, four-modality context window — and it is the newer of the two.
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.
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 Muse Wonder 1.0, and on millions of tokens that margin decides the monthly bill.
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
It is specifically built for that.
Anyone whose priority is meta superintelligence labs' first frontier-class reasoning model — a new line distinct from the agentic-coding-focused muse spark family
→ Muse Wonder 1.0
That is its strongest area.
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 are real: 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.
Muse Wonder 1.0: where it fits
Meta Superintelligence Labs' October 12, 2026 debut frontier model — distinct from Muse Spark, scoring 52 on the independent Artificial Analysis Index with a 1M-token, four-modality context window. Released October 12, 2026 by Meta, it is built for meta Superintelligence Labs' first frontier-class reasoning model — a new line distinct from the agentic-coding-focused Muse Spark family, artificial Analysis Intelligence Index score of 52 (a gated 'Wonder Full' subscription variant scores 56, tied with Claude Sonnet 5.5, behind only Opus 5.5 at 58), 78.8% on DeepSWE v1.1 long-horizon coding, ahead of both Claude Opus 5.5 (74.2%) and GPT-6 Astra (74.1%), and accepts text, image, video, audio, and PDF input against a 1,048,576-token context window.
Its trade-offs: the stronger 'Wonder Full' variant is gated behind $50/$200-per-month Muse Code subscriptions, with no public API or independently verifiable pricing, meta's full safety report had not been published as of launch, first release in a brand-new model family — no track record yet next to Meta's more established Muse Spark line, and benchmark comparisons against Opus 5.5 and GPT-6 Astra are Meta's own self-reported figures. At $4 in / $20 out per million tokens, it sits in the mid price band.
The bottom line for this matchup
Because Muse Spark 1.1 and Muse Wonder 1.0 come from the same lab (Meta), they share the same training philosophy and ecosystem — the decision is purely tier vs. cost. Muse Wonder 1.0 is the more capable, more recent option; the other earns its place only when its price or latency profile fits a specific job better. Most teams should default to Muse Wonder 1.0 and drop down only with a concrete reason.
Want both Muse Spark 1.1 and Muse Wonder 1.0 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 pricingFrequently asked questions
Is Muse Spark 1.1 or Muse Wonder 1.0 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, 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) while Muse Wonder 1.0 leans toward meta superintelligence labs' first frontier-class reasoning model — a new line distinct from the agentic-coding-focused muse spark family, and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.
Which is cheaper, Muse Spark 1.1 or Muse Wonder 1.0?
Muse Spark 1.1 is cheaper — $1.25/$4.25 per 1M tokens vs $4/$20 per 1M tokens, roughly 3.2× apart on input.
Which has the bigger context window?
Both advertise 1M (~1,573 pages). Remember advertised ≠ usable: recall typically degrades before the ceiling.
Should I upgrade from Muse Spark 1.1 to Muse Wonder 1.0?
Since both are Meta models, the newer one (Muse Wonder 1.0) is usually the better default unless you need a specific cost or latency profile from the other.
Which is newer, Muse Spark 1.1 or Muse Wonder 1.0?
Muse Wonder 1.0 — released October 12, 2026, about 3 months after Muse Spark 1.1.
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.