Muse Spark 1.3 vs GLM 5.3 Flash
At a Glance
| Compare | Muse Spark 1.3Meta | GLM 5.3 FlashZ.ai |
|---|---|---|
| Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency | ||
| IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v2.5 | UnrankedNot in the 46-model eligible cohort | #29 of 4654.6 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 36.4–69.8 |
| CostLower is better · Published-token output estimate | UnrankedNot in the 44-model eligible cohort | #2 of 44$0.0087 per LiveBench case |
| EfficiencyHigher is better · MM Efficiency v1.5 | UnrankedNot in the 38-model eligible cohort | #1 of 3877.3 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 68.2–84.9 |
| Pricing and Limits | ||
| Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | Not reported | $0.075Z.ai ↗ · Aug 29, 2026 |
| Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | Not reported | $0.25Z.ai ↗ · Aug 29, 2026 |
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | Not reported | 1,000K |
| Model facts checked | Sep 4, 2026View model evidence → | Sep 2, 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 1.3 | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Agent Arenaagent-2026-09-15-d25aabda0010 · outcome_score · leader | 4.20100% of row best · score · Muse Spark 1.3 (Max); 95% CI [3.33950614, 5.06185896]; sessions 31052; observations 2525117; rank 15 | 1.1597% of row best · score · GLM 5.3 Flash; 95% CI [0.48275443, 1.81278415]; sessions 43164; observations 4433017; rank 25 |
| LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-13-d25aabda0010 · arena_rating · leader | 1,489.74100% of row best · rating · muse-spark-1.3-max; 95% CI [1480.91456937, 1498.56660928]; votes 4723; rank 10 | 1,471.8999% of row best · rating · glm-5.3-flash; 95% CI [1465.37026588, 1478.41920488]; votes 10038; rank 24 |
| LMArena Vision Arenavision-2026-09-13-d25aabda0010 · arena_rating · statistical tie | 1,314.56100% of row best · rating · muse-spark-1.3-max; 95% CI [1299.74034111, 1329.38210317]; votes 1804; rank 8 | 1,298.7199% of row best · rating · glm-5.3-flash; 95% CI [1287.06707337, 1310.34654848]; votes 3110; rank 17 |
| LiveBench2026-06-25 · overall · leader | 85.47100% of row best · percent · muse-spark-1.3-xhigh · 28,234 output tokens / case | 73.2786% of row best · percent · glm-5.3-flash · 34,707 output tokens / case |
| ToneBench2026-09-11-10-task-4ef099199c9c · overall_score · unverified | 82.6394% of row best · points · Muse Spark 1.3 (thinking) · 6,301 output tokens / case | 88.19100% of row best · points · GLM-5.3 Flash · 25,960 output tokens / case |
| Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above · 1 tie | 3 benchmark winsOverall lead | 0 benchmark wins |
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 1.3 | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Meta | Z.ai |
| Family | Muse Spark | Glm 5 3 Flash |
| Model | Muse Spark 1.3 | GLM-5.3-Flash |
| Version | Muse Spark 1.3 | GLM-5.3-Flash |
| Lifecycle | preview | active |
| Released | 2026-09-02 | 2026-09-02 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text, Image, Video | Text, Image, Video, Document |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | Unknown | 1,000K |
| Total parameters | Unknown | 320B |
| Active parameters | Unknown | 18B |
| License | Unknown | MIT |
| Open weights | No | Yes |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | No | Yes |
| Provider access | Unknown | Deepinfra (Standard), Fireworks Ai (Standard), Together Ai (Standard), Z.ai (Standard) |
| Capabilities | chat, computer-use, generation, reasoning, research, tools | agents, chat, computer-use, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools, vision |
Muse Spark 1.3 Capabilities
GLM 5.3 Flash Capabilities
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Muse Spark 1.3 vs GLM 5.3 Flash FAQs
Is Muse Spark 1.3 or GLM 5.3 Flash better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Muse Spark 1.3 and GLM 5.3 Flash, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Muse Spark 1.3 or GLM 5.3 Flash?+
Only GLM 5.3 Flash has a directly sourced input price: $0.075 per million tokens. Only GLM 5.3 Flash has a directly sourced output price: $0.25 per million tokens.
Which has a larger context window, Muse Spark 1.3 or GLM 5.3 Flash?+
Neither model has a larger sourced context window in this comparison. Muse Spark 1.3 is — and GLM 5.3 Flash is 1,000K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Muse Spark 1.3 or GLM 5.3 Flash?+
Muse Spark 1.3 leads the current overall benchmark count. The result uses 4 protocol-matched benchmarks from 2 publishers; it is not a universal quality score.
Can Muse Spark 1.3 or GLM 5.3 Flash be self-hosted?+
GLM 5.3 Flash is the only model in this pair currently marked as self-hostable. Muse Spark 1.3 is not marked open weight; GLM 5.3 Flash is open weight.
Can Muse Spark 1.3 and GLM 5.3 Flash understand images?+
Muse Spark 1.3 is documented with image input; GLM 5.3 Flash is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Muse Spark 1.3 or GLM 5.3 Flash?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Muse Spark 1.3 is — and GLM 5.3 Flash is 131K.
Do Muse Spark 1.3 and GLM 5.3 Flash support reasoning and tool use?+
Muse Spark 1.3: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. GLM 5.3 Flash: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, Muse Spark 1.3 or GLM 5.3 Flash?+
Muse Spark 1.3 has 0 sourced provider routes; GLM 5.3 Flash has 4, so GLM 5.3 Flash has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, Muse Spark 1.3 or GLM 5.3 Flash?+
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.