Muse Spark 1.2 vs GLM 5.2

At a Glance

Compare
Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency
IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v2.5UnrankedNot 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 estimateUnrankedNot in the 44-model eligible cohort#12 of 44$0.056 per LiveBench case
EfficiencyHigher is better · MM Efficiency v1.5UnrankedNot 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 tokensNot reported$0.75Deepinfra · Sep 21, 2026
Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokensNot reported$2.40Deepinfra · Sep 21, 2026
Context windowMaximum documented tokensNot reported1,049K
Model facts checkedSep 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

All benchmark results →
BenchmarkMuse Spark 1.2GLM-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 324.37100% 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 · leader1,489.44100% of row best · rating · muse-spark-1.2 (xHigh); 95% CI [1478.95697715, 1499.92080617]; votes 3227; rank 111,466.9398% of row best · rating · glm-5.2-max; 95% CI [1462.35303996, 1471.51268346]; votes 36798; rank 29
LiveBench2026-06-25 · overall · leader81.88100% of row best · percent · muse-spark-1.2-xhigh · 18,700 output tokens / case76.9694% of row best · percent · glm-5.2 · 23,463 output tokens / case
Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above2 benchmark winsOverall lead1 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

FieldMuse Spark 1.2GLM-5.2
DeveloperMetaZ.ai
FamilyMuse SparkGlm 5 2
ModelMuse Spark 1.2GLM-5.2
VersionMuse Spark 1.2GLM-5.2
Lifecyclepreviewactive
Released2026-08-05Unknown
Knowledge cutoffUnknownUnknown
Input modalitiesText, Image, Video, AudioText
Output modalitiesTextText
Context windowUnknown1,049K
Total parametersUnknown753.3B
Active parametersUnknownUnknown
LicenseUnknownmit
Open weightsNoYes
API availableYesYes
Self-hostableNoYes
Provider accessUnknownDeepinfra (Standard), Fireworks Ai (Standard), Hugging Face (Standard), Openrouter (Standard), Together Ai (Standard)
Capabilitieschat, computer-use, generation, reasoning, research, structured_outputs, toolschat, generation, reasoning, tools

Muse Spark 1.2 Capabilities

chatcomputer-usegenerationreasoningresearchstructured outputstools
Serving providers0
Canonical IDmeta-llama/muse-spark-1.2

GLM 5.2 Capabilities

chatgenerationreasoningtools
Serving providers5
Canonical IDzai-org/GLM-5.2

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.

Send Feedback