Grok 4.7 vs Muse Spark 1.1 vs Qwen3.8 Max 0902
Muse Spark 1.1 comes out ahead, 57 to 52 and 48 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
xAIGrok 4.7
52/100- ECI—
- Price$2.00 / $6.00
- Context500K
- Our pick
MetaMuse Spark 1.1
57/100- ECI154.3
- Price$1.25 / $4.25
- Context1.05M
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3.8 Max 0902
48/100- ECI155.2
- Price$2.00 / $6.00
- Context1M
Muse Spark 1.1 is our pick
Muse Spark 1.1 is the better all-round choice, scoring 57/100 against Grok 4.7 (52) and Qwen3.8 Max 0902 (48). It leads on capability, price and inputs & features. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%. Capability uses the average of shared benchmarks (SimpleQA Verified), because Grok 4.7 has no Capabilities Index score yet.
- CapabilityMuse Spark 1.1Shared benchmarks: Muse Spark 1.1 57.8% · Grok 4.7 56.0% · Qwen3.8 Max 0902 47.3%
- Lowest priceMuse Spark 1.1Muse Spark 1.1 $2.00 · Grok 4.7 $3.00 · Qwen3.8 Max 0902 $3.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextMuse Spark 1.1Muse Spark 1.1 1,048,576 · Qwen3.8 Max 0902 1,000,000 · Grok 4.7 500,000 tokens
- Widest inputsMuse Spark 1.1 and Qwen3.8 Max 0902Grok 4.7: Text, Images, PDFs · Muse Spark 1.1: Text, Images, PDFs, Video · Qwen3.8 Max 0902: Text, Images, PDFs, Video
- Self-hostingNo open weightsAll three are available only through APIs
| Measure | Weight | Grok 4.7 | Muse Spark 1.1 | Qwen3.8 Max 0902 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityShared benchmarks | 50% | 56 | 58 | 47 |
| Price | 25% | 27 | 36 | 27 |
| Inputs & features | 15% | 80 | 90 | 80 |
| Context window | 10% | 48 | 61 | 60 |
| Overall | 100% | 52/100 | 57/100 | 48/100 |
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Grok 4.7xAI | Muse Spark 1.1Meta | Qwen3.8 Max 0902Alibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | 154.3 | 155.2 (best) |
| ECI rank | — | #35 of 148 | #28 of 148 (best) |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 92.7% (best) | — | 92.3% |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics | 53.0% | — | 65.6% (best) |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 98.1% | — | 100% (best) |
| SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions | 56.0% | 57.8% (best) | 47.3% |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $2.00 | $1.25 (best) | $2.00 |
| Output | $6.00 | $4.25 (best) | $6.00 |
| Cached input | $0.50 | $0.15 (best) | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $3.00 | $2.00 (best) | $3.00 |
| Long-context rate | Over 200K: $4.00 / $12.00 | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official xAI API | Official Meta API | Median of 6 providers |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 500,000 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens (best) | 1,000,000 tokens |
| Max output | 500,000 tokens (best) | 131,072 tokens | 131,072 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| PDFs | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | Yes | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yeslow · medium · high · xhigh | Yesminimal · low · medium · high · xhigh | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | Yes | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| API model ID | grok-4.7 | muse-spark-1.1 | — |
| API providers | 17 (best) | 13 | 6 |
| Released | Sep 21, 2026 | Jul 9, 2026 | Sep 2, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | May 2026 | — | — |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Grok 4.7$32.00
- Muse Spark 1.1$21.00
- Qwen3.8 Max 0902$32.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Grok 4.7, Muse Spark 1.1 or Qwen3.8 Max 0902?
Muse Spark 1.1 is the better all-round choice, scoring 57/100 against Grok 4.7 (52) and Qwen3.8 Max 0902 (48). It leads on capability, price and inputs & features. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%. Capability uses the average of shared benchmarks (SimpleQA Verified), because Grok 4.7 has no Capabilities Index score yet.
Which is cheaper, Grok 4.7, Muse Spark 1.1 or Qwen3.8 Max 0902?
Muse Spark 1.1 is cheaper at $1.25 input / $4.25 output per million tokens (official Meta API price). Grok 4.7 costs $2.00 input / $6.00 output per million tokens (official xAI API price); Qwen3.8 Max 0902 costs $2.00 input / $6.00 output per million tokens (median across 6 API providers). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $2.00 per million tokens for Muse Spark 1.1 versus $3.00 for Grok 4.7 (1.5× as much) and $3.00 for Qwen3.8 Max 0902 (1.5× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
Not every model here has a Capabilities Index score, so we compare the average of shared benchmarks (SimpleQA Verified): Muse Spark 1.1 57.8%, Grok 4.7 56.0% and Qwen3.8 Max 0902 47.3%. On individual benchmarks: SimpleQA Verified — Muse Spark 1.1 57.8%, Grok 4.7 56.0%, Qwen3.8 Max 0902 47.3%.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Grok 4.7, Muse Spark 1.1 and Qwen3.8 Max 0902 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Muse Spark 1.1 leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Muse Spark 1.1 has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 1,000,000 for Qwen3.8 Max 0902 and 500,000 for Grok 4.7. Maximum output per response: Grok 4.7 up to 500,000, Muse Spark 1.1 up to 131,072, Qwen3.8 Max 0902 up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Grok 4.7 accepts text, images and PDFs; Muse Spark 1.1 accepts text, images, PDFs and video; Qwen3.8 Max 0902 accepts text, images, PDFs and video. Muse Spark 1.1 handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
No. Grok 4.7, Muse Spark 1.1 and Qwen3.8 Max 0902 are proprietary and only available through APIs and apps.
Which is newer?
Grok 4.7 is the newest, released Sep 21, 2026. Qwen3.8 Max 0902 came out Sep 2, 2026; Muse Spark 1.1 came out Jul 9, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: Grok 4.7 May 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.
