Muse Spark 1.2 vs Muse Wonder Full vs GLM-5.3
Muse Spark 1.2 comes out ahead, 84 to 72 and 51 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
- Our pick
MetaMuse Spark 1.2
84/100- ECI155.2
- Price$1.25 / $4.25
- Context1.05M
- Meta
Muse Wonder Full
72/100- ECI—
- Price—
- Context1.05M
Z.ai (Zhipu)GLM-5.3
51/100- ECI156.2
- Price$1.40 / $4.40
- Context1M
Muse Spark 1.2 is our pick
Muse Spark 1.2 is the better all-round choice, scoring 84/100 against Muse Wonder Full (72) and GLM-5.3 (51). It leads on inputs & features. The score weighs inputs & features 60%, context window 40%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
- CapabilityNot enough dataNo independent benchmark covers every model here yet
- Lowest priceMuse Spark 1.2Muse Spark 1.2 $2.00 · GLM-5.3 $2.15 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend) · Muse Wonder Full unpriced
- Longest contextMuse Spark 1.2 and Muse Wonder FullMuse Spark 1.2 1,048,576 · Muse Wonder Full 1,048,576 · GLM-5.3 1,000,000 tokens
- Widest inputsMuse Spark 1.2Muse Spark 1.2: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video · Muse Wonder Full: Text, Images, Audio, Video · GLM-5.3: Text
- Self-hostingGLM-5.3Publishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Muse Spark 1.2 | Muse Wonder Full | GLM-5.3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inputs & features | 60% | 100 | 80 | 45 |
| Context window | 40% | 61 | 61 | 60 |
| Overall | 100% | 84/100 | 72/100 | 51/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability and price. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Muse Spark 1.2Meta | Muse Wonder FullMeta | GLM-5.3Z.ai (Zhipu) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 155.2 | — | 156.2 (best) |
| ECI rank | #38 of 165 | — | #33 of 165 (best) |
| 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 | 60.3% (best) | — | 41.0% |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $1.25 (best) | — | $1.40 |
| Output | $4.25 (best) | — | $4.40 |
| Cached input | $0.15 (best) | — | $0.26 |
| Blended (3:1) | $2.00 (best) | — | $2.15 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | — | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Meta API | — | Official Z.AI API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 1,048,576 tokens (best) | 1,048,576 tokens (best) | 1,000,000 tokens |
| Max output | 131,072 tokens | — | 131,072 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | Yes | No |
| PDFs | Yes | No | No |
| Audio | Yes | Yes | No |
| Video | Yes | Yes | No |
| Reasoning | Yesminimal · low · medium · high · xhigh | Yes | Yeslow · high · max |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | No | Yes |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary | Open |
| API model ID | muse-spark-1.2 | — | glm-5.3 |
| API providers | 18 | — | 83 (best) |
| Released | Aug 5, 2026 | Oct 12, 2026 | Aug 14, 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.
- Muse Spark 1.2$21.00
- Muse Wonder Full—
- GLM-5.3$22.80
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Muse Spark 1.2, Muse Wonder Full or GLM-5.3?
Muse Spark 1.2 is the better all-round choice, scoring 84/100 against Muse Wonder Full (72) and GLM-5.3 (51). It leads on inputs & features. The score weighs inputs & features 60%, context window 40%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
Which is cheaper, Muse Spark 1.2, Muse Wonder Full or GLM-5.3?
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). Muse Wonder Full has no published per-token price.
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Muse Spark 1.2 has an ECI of 155.2, Muse Wonder Full has not been scored yet and GLM-5.3 has an ECI of 156.2.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Muse Spark 1.2, Muse Wonder Full and GLM-5.3 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Muse Spark 1.2 and Muse Wonder Full have the largest context windows (1,048,576 and 1,048,576 tokens), against 1,000,000 for GLM-5.3. Maximum output per response: Muse Spark 1.2 up to 131,072, GLM-5.3 up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Muse Spark 1.2 accepts text, images, PDFs, audio and video; Muse Wonder Full accepts text, images, audio and video; GLM-5.3 accepts text. 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 and Muse Wonder Full is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Muse Wonder Full is the newest, released Oct 12, 2026. GLM-5.3 came out 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 Nov 2, 2026.
