Model comparison
Grok 4.6 vs Muse Spark 1.2
SpaceXAI against Meta, compared on context, price, and verified benchmark results.
Catalog record checked August 13, 2026; individual provider fields may change.
SpaceXAI
Grok 4.6
Frontier
Meta
Muse Spark 1.2
Frontier
| Specification | Grok 4.6 | Muse Spark 1.2 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | SpaceXAI | Meta |
| Tier | Frontier | Frontier |
| Context window | 500K | Winner: 1.05M |
| Max output | Not verified | Not verified |
| Input / 1M tokens | $2 | Winner: $1.25 |
| Output / 1M tokens | $6 | Winner: $4.25 |
| Weights | Closed | Closed |
| Parameters | Not disclosed | Not disclosed |
| Reasoning levels | low, medium, high, xhigh | minimal, low, medium, high, xhigh |
| Modalities | text, image | text, image, video, pdf |
| Released | August 12, 2026 | August 5, 2026 |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index [high] (2026-08-12) | Winner: 61 | 57 |
Prices are USD per million tokens at standard rates, excluding batch and caching discounts. Bold indicates the better figure where one is objectively better. Values we could not confirm from the provider are shown as “Not verified” rather than estimated.
Pricing tiers: Grok 4.6: Base tier is $2/$6 per million tokens; prompts at or above 200K tokens are priced at $4/$12. Cached input is $0.50 / $1.00. Web/X search tool calls bill separately.
Grok 4.6
SpaceXAI's current code and chat default — same $2/$6 list as Grok 4.5, with a 500K context window and image input.
Best for
- Coding agents
- Chat and knowledge work
- Cost-sensitive frontier work
Watch out
Token rates double above a 200K-token prompt. DeepSWE 1.1 best-effort for this family is the xhigh row at 66.7% (the catalog table rounds Pass@1 to 67%), not the higher-scoring medium config.
Muse Spark 1.2
Meta Model API's current Muse Spark checkpoint (`muse-spark-1.2`). Meta documents it as the coding-focused Spark update used with Muse Code; maximum output is not published as a hard token cap on the current model page, so it stays unverified.
Best for
- Terminal coding agents
- Long-horizon refactors
- Meta Model API stacks
Watch out
A cheaper contributor tier (`muse-spark-1.2-contributor`) permits training use of prompts and completions; standard-tier `muse-spark-1.2` does not. `reasoning_effort: none` is unsupported (HTTP 400). Weights are not marked open until an HF/license card is verified. For local agentic now, prefer Muse Glimmer 30B.
Benchmark
DeepSWE 1.1 in context
Both models shown against the wider field, with cost per completed task alongside the score.
Local leader
Claude Opus 5 [max]
74%
Rows shown
24
Highest published reasoning effort per model (not best Pass@1)
Snapshot date
2026-08-13
Mirrored from deepswe.datacurve.ai
Better is toward the top-right (higher pass rate, lower cost). X-axis is reversed to match DeepSWE’s public chart. v1.1 uses average cost / tokens / steps; v1 uses published medians.
| # | Model | Pass@1 | Cost / task | Tokens / task | Steps / task |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Claude Opus 5 [max] | 74% | $11.84 | 118k | 99 |
| 2 | GPT-5.6 Sol [max] | 73% | $8.39 | 60k | 61 |
| 3 | Claude Fable 5 [max] | 70% | $21.63 | 119k | 88 |
| 4 | GPT-5.6 Terra [max] | 70% | $4.95 | 72k | 76 |
| 5 | Kimi K3 [max] | 69% | $4.65 | 82k | 98 |
| 6 | GPT-5.6 Luna [max] | 67% | $3.03 | 73k | 102 |
| 7 | GPT-5.5 [xhigh] | 67% | $7.23 | 46k | 82 |
| 8 | Grok 4.6 [xhigh] | 67% | $5.50 | 71k | 87 |
| 9 | Gemini 3.7 Flash [high] | 65% | $2.18 | 107k | 125 |
| 10 | DeepSeek V4-Pro [max] | 63% | $0.24 | 106k | 155 |
| 11 | Claude Opus 4.8 [max] | 59% | $13.22 | 135k | 120 |
| 12 | Qwen3.8-Max [xhigh] | 58% | $3.73 | 95k | 111 |
| 13 | Muse Spark 1.2 [xhigh] | 55% | $3.70 | 99k | 101 |
| 14 | Claude Sonnet 5 [max] | 54% | $26.40 | 214k | 268 |
| 15 | Grok 4.5 [high] | 54% | $2.42 | 36k | 61 |
| 16 | DeepSeek V4-Flash [max] | 53% | $0.10 | 108k | 153 |
| 17 | Muse Spark 1.1 [xhigh] | 53% | $2.36 | 74k | 96 |
| 18 | GPT-5.4 [xhigh] | 52% | $5.65 | 71k | 70 |
| 19 | Gemini 3.6 Flash [high] | 47% | $4.42 | 96k | 117 |
| 20 | GLM 5.2 [max] | 44% | $3.92 | 78k | 129 |
| 21 | Gemini 3.5 Flash [high] | 36% | $3.45 | 76k | 105 |
| 22 | Kimi K2.7 Code | 31% | $2.82 | 59k | 149 |
| 23 | Claude Sonnet 4.6 [high] | 30% | $5.52 | 76k | 134 |
| 24 | Gemini 3.1 Pro [high] | 12% | $2.14 | 28k | 76 |
DeepSWE “Best” picks the highest published reasoning effort per model (not the highest pass rate). Small gaps may not be statistically meaningful — confirm on deepswe.datacurve.ai.
Common questions
Grok 4.6 vs Muse Spark 1.2
Answered from the verified figures on this page rather than general guidance.
Is Grok 4.6 or Muse Spark 1.2 cheaper for input?
Muse Spark 1.2 is cheaper at $1.25 per million input tokens, against $2 for Grok 4.6 — roughly 1.6× the price. Output tokens usually dominate a real bill, so weigh the output rate more heavily than the input rate. These are base rates; Grok 4.6 has tiered pricing: Base tier is $2/$6 per million tokens; prompts at or above 200K tokens are priced at $4/$12. Cached input is $0.50 / $1.00. Web/X search tool calls bill separately.
Is Grok 4.6 or Muse Spark 1.2 cheaper for output?
Muse Spark 1.2 is cheaper at $4.25 per million output tokens, against $6 for Grok 4.6 — roughly 1.4× the price. Output tokens usually dominate a real bill, so weigh the output rate more heavily than the input rate. These are base rates; Grok 4.6 has tiered pricing: Base tier is $2/$6 per million tokens; prompts at or above 200K tokens are priced at $4/$12. Cached input is $0.50 / $1.00. Web/X search tool calls bill separately.
Which has the larger context window, Grok 4.6 or Muse Spark 1.2?
Muse Spark 1.2 accepts 1.05M tokens against 500K for Grok 4.6. This only matters if you routinely send very long documents or large codebases.
Do Grok 4.6 and Muse Spark 1.2 support the same reasoning levels?
Grok 4.6 exposes low, medium, high, xhigh, while Muse Spark 1.2 exposes minimal, low, medium, high, xhigh.
Should I use Grok 4.6 or Muse Spark 1.2?
Both sit in the frontier tier, so the choice usually comes down to price and context rather than capability. Grok 4.6 suits coding agents; Muse Spark 1.2 suits terminal coding agents.
Next step
Choosing between them
Tier and workload decide this more reliably than a leaderboard position does.
If both sit in the same tier, the decision usually comes down to context window and output price rather than headline capability — output tokens dominate real bills.
If one is a step up within the same provider, the useful question is whether your hardest task actually fails on the cheaper tier. Most production volume — classification, extraction, summarization — does not.
Choosing a harness rather than a model — Cursor, Copilot, Claude Code, Muse Code, or Lovable? Compare agentic harnesses · Latest releases.