Compare / head-to-head

GLM-5.2vsMuse Spark 1.3

Muse Spark 1.3 leads 3 of 3 shared benchmarks. Muse Spark 1.3 is 1.1x cheaper per token. Muse Spark 1.3 has the larger context window (1.0M tokens).

Benchmarks from cited public sources; pricing from official pages; status from official provider feeds.

Shared benchmarks
0 – 3
Muse Spark 1.3 leads
Cheaper per token
Muse Spark 1.3
1.1x cheaper, input + output
Larger context
Muse Spark 1.3
1.0M tokens
Providers
2 providers
Z.ai · Meta
GLM-5.2
Z.ai · released 2026-06-24
text
Context
1M
Max out
131K
Input /1M
$1.4 ↗
Output /1M
$4.4 ↗
Cached /1M
$0.26
Scores
26 · 9 core
Muse Spark 1.3
Meta · released 2026-09-02
textvisionvideo
Context
1.0M
Max out
—
Input /1M
$1.25 ↗
Output /1M
$4.25 ↗
Cached /1M
$0.15
Scores
10 · 0 core
Quality

Benchmark matrix

BenchmarkGLM-5.2Muse Spark 1.3ΔEdge
Reported by both · 3
DeepSWE v1.146.2% ↗75.4% ↗-29.2 ptMuse Spark 1.3
GDPval-AA v21508 ↗1754 ↗-246Muse Spark 1.3
Terminal-Bench 2.181% ↗88.8% ↗-7.8 ptMuse Spark 1.3
Only GLM-5.2 reports · 22
GPQA Diamond91.9% ↗epochnot reported——
AIME 202690% ↗matharena ⚠not reported——
Agents' Last Exam (ALE-CLI)23.8% ↗not reported——
AutomationBench v1.0.626.2% ↗not reported——
CyberGym77.2% ↗not reported——
ExploitBench24.4% ↗not reported——
ExploitGym 2h29 ↗not reported——
ExploitGym 6h39 ↗not reported——
FrontierMath Tier 4 v2 (Epoch AI run)29.3% ↗epochnot reported——
FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 v2 (Epoch AI run)59.2% ↗epochnot reported——
FrontierSWE67.5% ↗not reported——
HLE (with tools)54.7% ↗not reported——
NL2Repo48.9% ↗not reported——
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 (Epoch AI run)86.4% ↗epochnot reported——
PostTrainBench31.7% ↗not reported——
ProgramBench (Almost Solved)9.5% ↗not reported——
SimpleQA Verified34.2% ↗epochnot reported——
SWE-Bench Pro62.1% ↗not reported——
SWE-bench Verified (Epoch AI run)78.7% ↗epochnot reported——
SWE-Marathon v1.119.4% ↗not reported——
Terminal-Bench 3.04.6% ↗not reported——
Toolathlon Verified59.9% ↗not reported——
Only Muse Spark 1.3 reports · 7
AutomationBenchnot reported49.6% ↗——
DeepSearchQAnot reported90.3% ↗——
JobBenchnot reported64.9% ↗——
MRCR 256K-512Knot reported98.5% ↗——
MRCR 512K-1Mnot reported98.1% ↗——
OSWorld 2.0 (partial)not reported66.9% ↗——
SWE-Atlas Codebase QnAnot reported59.4% ↗——
Scores tagged "epoch" or "matharena" are independent runs, used only where the lab has not published its own; ⚠ marks rows MathArena flags as released after the competition. Higher is better on every row. Δ is GLM-5.2 minus Muse Spark 1.3 in the benchmark's own unit. "Not reported" means the lab has not published that figure; it is not a zero. ↗ opens the source.
Specs & pricing

Side by side

SpecGLM-5.2Muse Spark 1.3Edge
Context window1M tokens1.0M tokensMuse Spark 1.3
Max output131K tokens——
Input price / 1M$1.4 ↗$1.25 ↗Muse Spark 1.3
Output price / 1M$4.4 ↗$4.25 ↗Muse Spark 1.3
Cached input / 1M$0.26 ↗$0.15 ↗Muse Spark 1.3
Input + output / 1M
Lower is cheaper. List prices; batch, tool and regional fees excluded.
$5.8$5.5Muse Spark 1.3
Modalitiestexttext · vision · videoMuse Spark 1.3
Released2026-06-242026-09-02—
Cited benchmark scores2610—
Reliability

Provider status

All providers →
More matchups

GLM-5.2 vs …

More matchups

Muse Spark 1.3 vs …

Built by Respan
Which one wins on your data?

Public benchmarks are a starting point. Run GLM-5.2 and Muse Spark 1.3 on your own prompts with Respan evals, or route to either through one gateway key with automatic failover.