GLM-5.3 vs Muse Spark 1.2
Muse Spark 1.2 comes out ahead, 72 to 64 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
Z.ai (Zhipu)GLM-5.3
64/100- ECI155.8
- Price$1.40 / $4.40
- Context1M
- Our pick
MetaMuse Spark 1.2
72/100- ECI155.0
- Price$1.25 / $4.25
- Context1.05M
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Muse Spark 1.2 is our pick
Muse Spark 1.2 is the better all-round choice, scoring 72/100 against GLM-5.3 (64). It leads on inputs & features. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
- CapabilityGLM-5.3Capabilities Index (ECI): GLM-5.3 155.8 · Muse Spark 1.2 155.0
- Lowest priceMuse Spark 1.2Muse Spark 1.2 $2.00 · GLM-5.3 $2.15 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextMuse Spark 1.2Muse Spark 1.2 1,048,576 · GLM-5.3 1,000,000 tokens
- Widest inputsMuse Spark 1.2GLM-5.3: Text · Muse Spark 1.2: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video
- Self-hostingGLM-5.3Publishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | GLM-5.3 | Muse Spark 1.2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI) | 50% | 85 | 84 |
| Price | 25% | 34 | 36 |
| Inputs & features | 15% | 45 | 100 |
| Context window | 10% | 60 | 61 |
| Overall | 100% | 64/100 | 72/100 |
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | GLM-5.3Z.ai (Zhipu) | Muse Spark 1.2Meta |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 155.8 (best) | 155.0 |
| ECI rank | #24 of 148 (best) | #30 of 148 |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 90.9% | — |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics | 68.8% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 91.1% | — |
| SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions | 41.0% | 60.3% (best) |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $1.40 | $1.25 (best) |
| Output | $4.40 | $4.25 (best) |
| Cached input | $0.26 | $0.15 (best) |
| Blended (3:1) | $2.15 | $2.00 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Z.AI API | Official Meta API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 131,072 tokens | 131,072 tokens |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes |
| PDFs | No | Yes |
| Audio | No | Yes |
| Video | No | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yeslow · high · max | Yesminimal · low · medium · high · xhigh |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | Yes |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| API model ID | glm-5.3 | muse-spark-1.2 |
| API providers | 62 (best) | 15 |
| Released | Aug 14, 2026 | Aug 5, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | — |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- GLM-5.3$22.80
- Muse Spark 1.2$21.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: GLM-5.3 or Muse Spark 1.2?
Muse Spark 1.2 is the better all-round choice, scoring 72/100 against GLM-5.3 (64). It leads on inputs & features. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
Which is cheaper, GLM-5.3 or Muse Spark 1.2?
Muse Spark 1.2 is cheaper at $1.25 input / $4.25 output per million tokens (official Meta API price). GLM-5.3 costs $1.40 input / $4.40 output per million tokens (official Z.AI API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $2.00 per million tokens for Muse Spark 1.2 versus $2.15 for GLM-5.3 (1.1× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
GLM-5.3 scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): GLM-5.3 155.8 (#24 of 148) and Muse Spark 1.2 155.0 (#30 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (153.7–158.3 vs 152.8–157.5), so treat the gap as small. On individual benchmarks: SimpleQA Verified — Muse Spark 1.2 60.3%, GLM-5.3 41.0%.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for GLM-5.3 and Muse Spark 1.2 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, GLM-5.3 leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Muse Spark 1.2 has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 1,000,000 for GLM-5.3. Maximum output per response: GLM-5.3 up to 131,072, Muse Spark 1.2 up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
GLM-5.3 accepts text; Muse Spark 1.2 accepts text, images, PDFs, audio and video. Muse Spark 1.2 handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
GLM-5.3 publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Muse Spark 1.2 is proprietary.
Which is newer?
GLM-5.3 is the newest, released Aug 14, 2026. Muse Spark 1.2 came out Aug 5, 2026.
How do you decide the winner?
Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Oct 4, 2026.
Related comparisons
- Add Grok 4.6Three-way comparison
- GLM-5.3 vs Grok 4.6xAI · ECI 156.6
- GLM-5.3 vs Qwen3.8 Max 0902Alibaba (Qwen) · ECI 155.2
- GLM-5.3 vs Gemini 3.8 FlashGoogle · ECI 156.9
- Muse Spark 1.2 vs Gemini 3.6 FlashGoogle · ECI 154.3
- Muse Spark 1.2 vs Qwen3.8 Max 0902Alibaba (Qwen) · ECI 155.2
- Muse Spark 1.2 vs Grok 4.5xAI · ECI 154.0
