Muse Spark 1.2 vs GLM 5.2
At a Glance
| Compare | Muse Spark 1.2Meta | GLM 5.2Z.ai |
|---|---|---|
| Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency | ||
| IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v2.5 | UnrankedNot in the 46-model eligible cohort | #23 of 4661.9 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 41.3–74.6 |
| CostLower is better · Published-token output estimate | UnrankedNot in the 44-model eligible cohort | #12 of 44$0.056 per LiveBench case |
| EfficiencyHigher is better · MM Efficiency v1.5 | UnrankedNot in the 38-model eligible cohort | #7 of 3861.3 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 51.0–67.6 |
| Pricing and Limits | ||
| Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | Not reported | $0.75Deepinfra ↗ · Sep 21, 2026 |
| Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | Not reported | $2.40Deepinfra ↗ · Sep 21, 2026 |
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | Not reported | 1,049K |
| Model facts checked | Sep 3, 2026View model evidence → | Aug 28, 2026View model evidence → |
Token prices are the lowest available sourced USD rates; input and output may use different providers. Cost ranking estimates output spend on LiveBench, not a full request bill. Ranking methodology →
Available Benchmarks
| Benchmark | Muse Spark 1.2 | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Agent Arenaagent-2026-09-15-d25aabda0010 · outcome_score · leader | -1.7794% of row best · score · Muse Spark 1.2 (xHigh); 95% CI [-2.69255217, -0.84918781]; sessions 33094; observations 1437075; rank 32 | 4.37100% of row best · score · GLM 5.2 (Max); 95% CI [3.67608698, 5.05982987]; sessions 76766; observations 4943866; rank 14 |
| LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-13-d25aabda0010 · arena_rating · leader | 1,489.44100% of row best · rating · muse-spark-1.2 (xHigh); 95% CI [1478.95697715, 1499.92080617]; votes 3227; rank 11 | 1,466.9398% of row best · rating · glm-5.2-max; 95% CI [1462.35303996, 1471.51268346]; votes 36798; rank 29 |
| LiveBench2026-06-25 · overall · leader | 81.88100% of row best · percent · muse-spark-1.2-xhigh · 18,700 output tokens / case | 76.9694% of row best · percent · glm-5.2 · 23,463 output tokens / case |
| Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above | 2 benchmark winsOverall lead | 1 benchmark win |
Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | Muse Spark 1.2 | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Meta | Z.ai |
| Family | Muse Spark | Glm 5 2 |
| Model | Muse Spark 1.2 | GLM-5.2 |
| Version | Muse Spark 1.2 | GLM-5.2 |
| Lifecycle | preview | active |
| Released | 2026-08-05 | Unknown |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text, Image, Video, Audio | Text |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | Unknown | 1,049K |
| Total parameters | Unknown | 753.3B |
| Active parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | Unknown | mit |
| Open weights | No | Yes |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | No | Yes |
| Provider access | Unknown | Deepinfra (Standard), Fireworks Ai (Standard), Hugging Face (Standard), Openrouter (Standard), Together Ai (Standard) |
| Capabilities | chat, computer-use, generation, reasoning, research, structured_outputs, tools | chat, generation, reasoning, tools |
Muse Spark 1.2 Capabilities
GLM 5.2 Capabilities
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Muse Spark 1.2 vs GLM 5.2 FAQs
Is Muse Spark 1.2 or GLM 5.2 better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Muse Spark 1.2 and GLM 5.2, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Muse Spark 1.2 or GLM 5.2?+
Only GLM 5.2 has a directly sourced input price: $0.75 per million tokens. Only GLM 5.2 has a directly sourced output price: $2.40 per million tokens.
Which has a larger context window, Muse Spark 1.2 or GLM 5.2?+
Neither model has a larger sourced context window in this comparison. Muse Spark 1.2 is — and GLM 5.2 is 1,049K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Muse Spark 1.2 or GLM 5.2?+
Muse Spark 1.2 leads the current overall benchmark count. The result uses 3 protocol-matched benchmarks from 2 publishers; it is not a universal quality score.
Can Muse Spark 1.2 or GLM 5.2 be self-hosted?+
GLM 5.2 is the only model in this pair currently marked as self-hostable. Muse Spark 1.2 is not marked open weight; GLM 5.2 is open weight.
Can Muse Spark 1.2 and GLM 5.2 understand images?+
Muse Spark 1.2 is documented with image input; GLM 5.2 is not documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Muse Spark 1.2 or GLM 5.2?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Muse Spark 1.2 is — and GLM 5.2 is —.
Do Muse Spark 1.2 and GLM 5.2 support reasoning and tool use?+
Muse Spark 1.2: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. GLM 5.2: reasoning and tool calling. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, Muse Spark 1.2 or GLM 5.2?+
Muse Spark 1.2 has 0 sourced provider routes; GLM 5.2 has 5, so GLM 5.2 has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, Muse Spark 1.2 or GLM 5.2?+
There is no universal value winner. Compare the input and output prices above with the matched benchmark result for your workload: cheaper tokens can be offset by different quality, token usage, latency, or provider availability.