STEALTHMARK · HEAD TO HEAD

All comparisons ↗

Muse Spark 1.3 vs Muse Wonder

Muse Wonder leads Muse Spark 1.3 by 17.2 points on StealthMark, 57.0 to 39.8. It leads on 7 of 9 benchmarks, including Latch, and Muse Spark 1.3 on 2, including Foresight. Muse Wonder scores higher on Newton's Mirror, with its largest category advantage in state at 600 ms.

See the difference ↘
All results ↗
All results ↗

Overall StealthMark

39.8/100Overall rank 34/53
57.0/100Overall rank 10/53

General Intelligence

38.3/100
53.1/100

Visual Intelligence

42.3/100
64.0/100

Reasoning efficiency

On every task, result quality and reasoning tokens are each compared with all measured models and weighed equally. Each dot is one model.

Single-step reasoning Result quality weighed against reasoning tokens on a single problem

Multi-step reasoning Result quality weighed against reasoning tokens across connected steps, as in agentic workflows

BENCHMARK BY BENCHMARK

Where each model leads

  • Muse Spark 1.3
  • Muse Wonder
  • Other models
  • Median

DATASHEET

Specs and pricing

Muse Spark 1.3 is 4.7× cheaper per output token. Muse Wonder scores higher on StealthMark and runs 1.8× faster in our speed test. Both take about 1M tokens of context.

  • Muse Spark 1.3
  • Muse Wonder
  • Other models
  • Median
PricePer 1M output tokens, input below
Muse Spark 1.3: $4.254.7× cheaper$1.25 inputMuse Wonder: $20$4 input
Context windowTokens per request, max output below
Muse Spark 1.3: 1MTiedMuse Wonder: 1MTied
Output speedTokens per second, our measurement
Muse Spark 1.3: 321tokens/sMuse Wonder: 5701.8× fastertokens/s
Developer
MetaBoth
Released
2 Sep 202612 Oct 2026
Origin
United StatesBoth
Input → output
Text, image, video, audio, PDF → textBoth

Full datasheets, every price and sourceMuse Spark 1.3 ↗Muse Wonder ↗

Anticipating threats and planning ahead. Collect coins while avoiding ghosts. Ghosts move before the player each turn, and collisions cost a life. 3 levels in sequence, up to 66 turns in total. Earlier moves and outcomes carry forward, testing learning across levels.

Muse Spark 1.3 64.3/100Rank 6/47

Survived 2 of 3
Foresight: complete playing field
Level 311 ptsTurn 17 / 20

Muse Wonder 52.3/100Rank 17/47

Survived 0 of 3
Foresight: complete playing field
Level 311 ptsTurn 17 / 20

Points per level

LevelMuse Spark 1.3Muse Wonder
Level 1Second Thoughts
26 ptsSurvived
16 ptsOut of lives
Level 2Pressure Pot
10 ptsSurvived
10 ptsOut of lives
Level 3Hide or Flight
11 ptsOut of lives
11 ptsOut of lives

Cooperative planning and learning from experience. Coordinate two robots to push numbered cores onto matching sockets. Pressure plates hold doors open; moving either robot uses one turn. 5 levels in sequence, up to 152 turns in total. Earlier moves and outcomes carry forward, testing learning across levels.

Muse Spark 1.3 72.4/100Rank 26/483 of 5 levels

3 of 5 played
Latch: complete playing field
Level 318.8 ptsTurn 32 / 36

Muse Wonder 67.0/100Rank 17/48

Cleared 5 of 5
Latch: complete playing field
Level 520.6 ptsTurn 27 / 40

Points per level

LevelMuse Spark 1.3Muse Wonder
Level 1Hold the door
5.2 ptsCleared
5.2 ptsCleared
Level 2Crossfeed
9.8 ptsCleared
9 ptsCleared
Level 3Relay vault
18.8 ptsCleared
18.8 ptsCleared
Level 4Passing bay
Pending
17.8 ptsClearedFinished early · 1 beacon left
Level 5Second thoughts
Not played
20.6 ptsCleared

Newton's Mirror

Same task instructions

Physics, perspective and recursive reflections, tested together. Explore the test ↗

The judgment

Muse Spark 1.3

The paint state is incorrectly and poorly drawn, despite a recognizable sphere-and-paint setup. The oversized sphere, oversized compact paint bodies, and blurred wall and floor images further limit the result. Isolated reflection cues provide very little support for the required repeated virtual rooms, nested spherical imagery or emitter mapping.

Muse Wonder

The flattened cyan cap, separate airborne black blob and crimson droplets support much of the contact sequence, although crimson adhesion and forward carriage remain unresolved. Main-sphere placement is broadly compatible with the prescribed view. Sparse isolated mirror images replace the defining repeated room structure and curved nested reflections. The crimson mass is visibly oversized, and the top-center lamp image is missing.

Score breakdown

CategoryMuse Spark 1.3Muse Wonder
State at 600 ms6.0/2522.0/25
Camera and placement8.5/1512.0/15
Reflections5.5/12021.5/120
Materials and scale4.0/107.5/10
Floor-damage reward0.0/100.0/10

Benchmark task

A spinning metal sphere and paint in a mirrored room test physical reasoning, perspective and consistency across repeated reflections.

Selfie

Different task instructions

Visual construction and creative interpretation.

The judgment

Muse Spark 1.3

The luminous creature and geometric mirror counterpart communicate self-recognition through a coherent palette and expressive eyes. The transformed reflection is purposeful. Simple oval anatomy, ambiguous reaching-arm construction, shallow spatial staging and limited illumination of nearby surfaces keep the illustration below exceptional execution.

Muse Wonder

An appealing, coherent cartoon with a readable effortful expression and clear forefeet gripping the trunk. Soft colours and controlled contours support its tenderness. Smooth ears, stiff foreleg construction, limited surface texture and uncertain seed contact keep the execution below intricate illustration quality.

Score breakdown

CategoryMuse Spark 1.3Muse Wonder
Task & likeness8.0/107.5/10
Anatomy & construction5.0/107.0/10
Space & placement6.5/107.5/10
Light & reflections7.0/107.0/10
Purposeful detail6.5/107.5/10
Artistry & character5.5/106.5/10
Materials & effects6.5/106.5/10
Visual integrity7.5/108.0/10

Benchmark task

Muse Spark 1.3

An imagined creature encounters its reflection. The scene tests original character design, visual self-interpretation and the relationship between a subject and its reflected image.

Muse Wonder

A small elephant protecting a delicate seed tests expressive anatomy, physical contact and contrasting organic materials.

Mona Lisa

Different task instructions

Precise visual recall and portrait reconstruction.

The judgment

Muse Spark 1.3

Dark hair, a restrained smile and overlapping hands suggest Mona Lisa, but replication is weak. The face is markedly elongated, the hands are oval pads with faint finger strokes, and the atmospheric landscape is absent. Soft gradients provide basic volume, while the frontal symmetry, shallow space and sparse clothing detail limit the portrait’s drawing quality.

Muse Wonder

A competent illustrative interpretation with controlled curves, readable details and coherent depth layers. Facial, hair and garment shading demonstrate more development than basic construction. Replication remains limited by the frontal pose, elongated face and pronounced smile; crowded fingers, weak contact shadows and smooth materials constrain anatomical and painterly conviction.

Score breakdown

CategoryMuse Spark 1.3Muse Wonder
Task & likeness1.0/105.5/10
Anatomy & construction1.5/105.5/10
Space & placement1.5/105.5/10
Light & reflections1.5/105.5/10
Purposeful detail1.0/105.5/10
Artistry & character1.5/105.5/10
Materials & effects1.5/105.0/10
Visual integrity3.0/106.5/10

Benchmark task

An SVG interpretation of the Mona Lisa tests facial likeness, anatomy and the composition of a familiar portrait.

Beach

Different task instructions

Creativity, perspective and visual beauty.

The judgment

Muse Spark 1.3

The warm sunset, framing palms and colorful beach accessories create an appealing scene with the requested animals, birds and reflections. Construction remains schematic: the raised hand misses the kite string, and a doglike silhouette hangs above the water without clear support. The sun reflection establishes a focal path, but shadows and materials lack depth. An unexplained horizontal bar crosses the sun.

Muse Wonder

A lively beach illustration with expressive animals, controlled colour transitions and unusually readable accessories. Connected graphic forms make the activities recognizable. Crowded overlaps, compressed depth, schematic joints, weak directional shadows and limited material variation constrain its physical coherence and refinement.

Score breakdown

CategoryMuse Spark 1.3Muse Wonder
Task & likeness6.5/108.5/10
Anatomy & construction3.0/106.0/10
Space & placement5.5/106.5/10
Light & reflections6.5/106.5/10
Purposeful detail5.0/109.0/10
Artistry & character3.5/107.0/10
Materials & effects3.0/106.0/10
Visual integrity3.5/107.0/10

Benchmark task

A busy shoreline at sunset tests scene composition, animal forms and the relationship between light and water reflections.

Ground Truth

Same task instructions

Physical reasoning, light and visual reconstruction.

The judgment

Muse Spark 1.3

This benchmark has not been assessed yet.

Muse Wonder

This benchmark has not been assessed yet.

Benchmark task

A plank, computer mouse and blueberry in a steel room test physical stability, spatial relationships, materials and lighting.

Raccoon

Different task instructions

Scene composition and interacting subjects.

The judgment

Muse Spark 1.3

The raccoon clearly rides on the dog's back, and the dog's paws reach the jet ski controls. Expressive faces and bright colors make the scene appealing. Simplified joints, crowded steering geometry and shallow hull perspective limit construction. The sun has no corresponding water reflection, and the splash shapes convey speed more clearly than convincing displacement.

Muse Wonder

An expressive, coherent cartoon demonstrates the requested riding and steering interaction. Clean contours, differentiated accessories and energetic spray support its appeal. Concealed seated contacts, compressed vehicle perspective and weak directional lighting limit physical resolution despite the detailed presentation.

Score breakdown

CategoryMuse Spark 1.3Muse Wonder
Task & likeness8.5/107.5/10
Anatomy & construction6.5/105.5/10
Space & placement7.0/106.5/10
Light & reflections5.0/104.5/10
Purposeful detail6.5/107.5/10
Artistry & character5.5/105.5/10
Materials & effects6.0/107.0/10
Visual integrity7.5/107.0/10

Benchmark task

A jet-ski scene pairs a canine driver with a raccoon passenger. It tests the placement and contact of interacting subjects, along with vehicle construction.

Pelican

Different task instructions

Subject construction and spatial relationships.

The judgment

Muse Spark 1.3

The pelican and bicycle are immediately recognizable, with an expressive face, bold bill and cheerful composition. Both legs connect to the body and reach pedal-like supports, but articulation, saddle support and wing contact with the handlebar remain unclear. Wheel alignment and layering are coherent. Simple landscape shapes, generic shadows and limited material variation constrain the finish.

Muse Wonder

A controlled, expressive seaside illustration with a distinctive pelican, coherent bicycle geometry and successfully resolved graphic detail. Visible pedal support and plausible occlusion strengthen the riding construction. Aligned wheels and layered scenery establish placement. Limited cast shadows, simplified leg articulation and restrained material modeling constrain its physical finish.

Score breakdown

CategoryMuse Spark 1.3Muse Wonder
Task & likeness8.5/108.5/10
Anatomy & construction6.0/106.0/10
Space & placement7.0/107.5/10
Light & reflections6.0/105.5/10
Purposeful detail7.0/108.5/10
Artistry & character5.5/107.5/10
Materials & effects6.5/106.0/10
Visual integrity7.0/108.0/10

Benchmark task

A cycling pelican tests anatomy, riding posture and contact between the bird and the bicycle.