$ diff muse-spark-1-3 claude-fable-5-1
Muse Spark 1.3 vs Claude Fable 5.1
Values come from Muse Spark 1.3 and Claude Fable 5.1, where each is cited to its source. This page states no benchmark result and ranks neither model — it puts two published specifications next to each other. Where a lab has not published a figure, the row says so rather than guessing.
Meta AIMuse Spark 1.3
- context
- 1M
- weights
- closed
- $/M in
- $1.25
- $/M out
- $4.25
- context
- 1M
- weights
- closed
- $/M in
- $10
- $/M out
- $50
What actually differs
- Context window
- Identical — both accept 1M tokens, so context length is not a reason to pick either.
- Input price
- Muse Spark 1.3 at $1.25/M against $10/M — 8.0× cheaper to feed. Standard rates: one of these labs also quotes a lower cached-input tier, which applies only when a prefix is reused — see the full spec below.
- Output price
- Muse Spark 1.3 at $4.25/M against $50/M — 11.8× cheaper to generate. Output dominates the bill on most agentic workloads, where the model writes far more than it reads.
- Recency
- Muse Spark 1.3 shipped 1 day after Claude Fable 5.1 (2026-09-02 vs 2026-09-01).
Full spec
| Attribute | Muse Spark 1.3 | Claude Fable 5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Meta AI | Anthropic |
| Released | 2026-09-02 | 2026-09-01 |
| Context window | 1,000,000 | 1M tokens |
| Pricing | Standard $1.25/M input · $4.25/M output · Contributor ≈$0.10/M input · ≈$0.20/M output | $10/M input · $50/M output · cache reads $0.25/M |
| License | proprietary | proprietary (API-only; no weight release) |
| Availability | Muse Code, Meta Model API | Claude API as `claude-fable-5-1`; plan-tier access is disputed — see `## Conflicting Reports` |