Muse Spark 1.1 scores 51 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, and Meta gives it away free in the Meta AI app. That one number frames the whole Muse Spark vs ChatGPT vs Claude vs Gemini question in July 2026, because the paid flagships have pulled clear since Muse Spark first launched. Claude Opus 5 now leads that index at 61, Claude Fable 5 sits at 60et GPT-5.6 Sol at 59. Free gets you close to the frontier in 2026; it no longer gets you to it.
Raw benchmark scores still do not tell you which model to open when you need to write an email, debug code, or read a medical label. We compared Muse Spark vs ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini across the tasks that actually matter, from coding and writing to reasoning and visual analysis. We also ran one identical prompt through all four, so you can see how they behave on the same job.
Update, July 25, 2026. This comparison was first published when Muse Spark launched, and the field has moved twice since. Meta shipped Muse Spark 1.1 on July 9, 2026 alongside its first paid API. OpenAI put GPT-5.6 into broad release the same day, in three tiers. Anthropic shipped Claude Opus 5 on July 24, 2026, and it took the top of the Intelligence Index. Google’s newest Flash model is Gemini 3.6 Flash and its newest Pro model is still Gemini 3.1 Pro. Every live table, price and recommendation below is July 2026. The hands-on test further down is kept as the dated record it is, with the models we actually ran.
The Key Takeaways
- Muse Spark 1.1 scores 51 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index and is free in Thinking mode in the Meta AI app. Meta’s paid Meta Model API runs $1.25 / $4.25 per million tokens.
- Claude Opus 5 leads the Intelligence Index at 61 and the Agentic Index at 55.3, first place on both, at $5 / $25 per million tokens.
- Coding is contested, not settled. GPT-5.6 Sol leads the Artificial Analysis Coding Index at 78.3, Opus 5 is right behind at 78.0, and Muse Spark 1.1 sits at 71.3.
- There is no Gemini 3.5 Pro or 3.6 Pro. Google’s newest Pro model is Gemini 3.1 Pro, still labelled preview, and its newest Flash model is Gemini 3.6 Flash.
- No single model wins everything. Matching the model to the task beats picking one and forcing every job through it.
Muse Spark vs ChatGPT vs Claude vs Gemini at a Glance
Before breaking down individual categories, here is how the four sit against each other today. All three index scores come from the same source, Artificial Analysis, so they are directly comparable; prices are list API rates per million tokens.
| Muse Spark 1.1 | GPT-5.6 Sol | Claude Opus 5 | Gemini 3.1 Pro | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 51 | 59 | 61 | 46 |
| AA Coding Index | 71.3 | 78.3 | 78.0 | 68.8 |
| AA Agentic Index | 37.5 | 54.0 | 55.3 | 21.4 |
| Best for | Free access, health, charts | Coding, daily chat | Agentic work, long documents | Google ecosystem, multimodal |
| Context window | 1M | 1M | 1M | 1M |
| API price (in / out per 1M) | $1.25 / $4.25 | $5 / $30 | $5 / $25 | $2 / $12 |
| Consumer price | Free | $20/mo (Plus) | $20/mo (Pro) | $19.99/mo (Google AI Pro) |
| Mac app | Non | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| iOS app | Yes (Meta AI) | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Sources: Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index v4.1, Meta AI blog, Anthropic model docs. Board figures read live on July 25, 2026.
Muse Spark vs ChatGPT: Coding and Software Development
Coding is where the gap between Muse Spark and its paid rivals is most visible, and it is also the category where the leaderboard has shifted most since April. Muse Spark 1.1 scores 71.3 on the Artificial Analysis Coding Index. GPT-5.6 Sol leads the board at 78.3, with Claude Opus 5 half a point behind at 78.0.
Who Actually Leads Coding Right Now
Nobody leads it outright, which is the honest answer and a useful one. The Coding Index goes to GPT-5.6 Sol at 78.3. The Agentic Index, which measures whether a model can hold a long multi-step job together, goes to Claude Opus 5 at 55.3 ahead of Sol at 54.0. If you write code in short bursts, Sol edges it. If you hand a model a repository and walk away, Opus 5 is the better bet.
Anthropic has not published a SWE-bench Verified score for Opus 5, so treat any figure you see quoted for it with suspicion. What Anthropic does publish is relative, including a claim that Opus 5 more than doubles Opus 4.8 on its internal Frontier-Bench. For the detail behind the model itself, see our Claude Opus 5 breakdown.
Where That Leaves Muse Spark
Muse Spark 1.1 closed a real gap. Version 1.1 was Meta’s stated answer to the coding criticism, and it moved the model to 71.3 on the Coding Index, roughly seven points off the leaders instead of the chasm the first release faced. Meta’s own benchmark chart also shows it winning several agentic tool-use rows, though those are vendor-reported and Artificial Analysis puts it well down its independent Agentic Index at 37.5.
If coding is your primary use case, Muse Spark is still not a replacement for ChatGPT or Claude. It is now a credible free second opinion rather than a distant one. You can reach both GPT and Claude through Fello AI on your Mac, which is useful if you switch between coding and non-coding tasks through the day.
Writing and Creative Tasks
Writing quality is harder to benchmark than coding because it depends on tone, style, and what you are trying to produce. In blind preference tests, Claude has consistently ranked as the most human-sounding AI writer, and that has not changed with the move to Sonnet 5 and Opus 5.
GPT-5.6 is the best all-rounder for writing. It handles emails, blog posts, social content and scripts reliably. It does not have Claude’s distinctive voice, but it rarely produces awkward output either, and the Terra tier gives you most of that quality at half the price of Sol.
Muse Spark writes competently with a noticeable lean toward conversational, social-media-friendly tone. TechRadar described the original release as “ChatGPT built for the social internet,” and that is still a fair summary. For Instagram captions or casual posts that tone fits. For business reports or long-form content, Claude and GPT produce more polished results.
Gemini 3.1 Pro is solid for factual, research-heavy writing where accuracy matters more than voice. Its 1 million token context window lets you feed entire documents as reference material, though every model in this comparison now matches that window.
Reasoning and Problem-Solving
This is where Muse Spark’s Contemplating mode makes its strongest case. Instead of one model thinking for longer, the way GPT Pro or Gemini Deep Think do, Contemplating mode spins up multiple reasoning agents that work in parallel and synthesises their outputs. Meta’s argument is that thinking wider produces comparable or better answers at lower latency than thinking deeper.
At launch that approach lifted Muse Spark on Humanity’s Last Exam from behind the field to 50.2%, ahead of both GPT-5.4 Pro at 43.9% and Gemini Deep Think at 48.4%. The idea held up well enough that Meta kept it in 1.1.
The catch is abstract reasoning. On ARC-AGI-2, which tests novel pattern recognition rather than recall, Muse Spark scored 42.5 against scores above 76 for the paid flagships of the time. For structured, well-defined problems Contemplating mode competes with the best. For open-ended abstract challenges it still falls behind.
Health, Medical, and Vision Tasks
This is Muse Spark’s strongest category by a wide margin. It scored 42.8 on HealthBench Hard, beating GPT-5.4’s 40.1 and more than doubling Gemini 3.1 Pro’s 20.6. Meta has kept health and science a stated priority through the 1.1 release.
For visual understanding, Muse Spark scores 80.5% on MMMU-Pro and 86.4 on CharXiv Reasoning for chart and figure analysis, which put it at the top of the chart-understanding field when it launched. If your work involves reading scientific charts or interpreting visual information, it remains the best free option we have tested.
Gemini 3.1 Pro is the only model here that comes close on vision, scoring 82.4% on MMMU-Pro. Its medical performance is far weaker, which leaves Muse Spark the clear pick for health-related work.
We Tested All Four Models on a Real Nutrition Label
Benchmarks do not tell you which model will read a label correctly and give you a useful answer. So we ran an identical prompt across all four models, using a photo of an instant ramen cup. It is a Vegan Society registered product at 436 kcal, 14g fat, 6.8g saturated fat, 69g carbs, 8.4g protein, 3.6g salt per 100g.
This test was run in April 2026, so the models named in it are the ones that were current then. We have left the result exactly as we recorded it rather than restaging it against newer versions, because the behaviours it exposed are the point.
The Prompt We Used
I’m sharing the nutrition label from a pack of instant ramen noodles. Read it carefully and answer:
- What are the three nutrition facts a health-conscious buyer should notice, and why do they matter?
- Ramen is often marketed as a cheap, filling meal. Based on this label, is it a reasonable everyday food or an occasional treat? Take a clear position.
- Who is this product actually a good fit for, and who should avoid it? Be specific.
Reference actual numbers from the label. No generic nutrition advice. No disclaimers about consulting a doctor. I want short output in bullets and table.
The Result
| Criterion | Muse Spark | GPT-5.4 | Claude Opus 4.6 | Gemini 3.1 Pro |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stuck to 3 key facts | Listed all 7 first | Yes | Yes | Skipped protein |
| Specific cup-size math | 2.5-2.9g salt per 70-80g cup | Generic | 2.3-2.7g salt per typical cup | Generic |
| Caught “deep-fried” inference | Yes | Non | Non | Yes |
| Caught Vegan Society logo | Yes | Non | Yes | Yes |
| Instruction adherence | Partial | Good | Best | Good |
| Memorable framing | Non | Non | Yes | Non |
Winner: Claude. It kept to exactly three nutrients as asked, gave the sharpest math for a real cup size, and delivered the only memorable bottom line, “It’s a legitimate pantry item, not a legitimate staple. Treat it like frozen pizza, not like rice.” That is the kind of answer you remember the next time you are in a grocery aisle.
The surprise was that Muse Spark and Gemini both caught visual details that Claude and ChatGPT missed. Both noticed the noodles are deep-fried, an inference from 14g total fat with 6.8g saturated, and both spotted the Vegan Society logo on the packaging. That is visual chain-of-thought in action, and it matches Muse Spark’s chart-understanding scores.
The bigger surprise was how ChatGPT was the weakest performer on this specific test. It followed the format and took a clear position, but it missed the visual inferences and skipped the cup-size math that made Claude’s answer sharper.
The takeaway. For visual analysis and health reasoning, Muse Spark punches above its benchmark score. For sharp judgment and clean instruction-following, Claude wins. No single model reads a label perfectly, which is exactly why access to more than one matters.
Muse Spark vs ChatGPT: Pricing and Platform Access
The pricing picture changed materially in July 2026. Muse Spark is still free to use, but Meta now also sells it, and every rival in this comparison ships a native Mac app.
| Muse Spark 1.1 | GPT-5.6 | Claude Opus 5 | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Fello AI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consumer price | Free | $20/mo (Plus) | $20/mo (Pro) | $19.99/mo (Google AI Pro) | $9.99/mo |
| API price (in / out per 1M) | $1.25 / $4.25 | $5 / $30 (Sol) | $5 / $25 | $2 / $12 | N/A |
| Free tier | Muse Spark 1.1, Thinking mode | GPT-5.5 Instant | Sonnet 5 (limited) | Gemini 3.6 Flash | Free model included |
| Mac desktop app | Non | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| iOS app | Yes (Meta AI) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Web access | meta.ai | chatgpt.com | claude.ai | gemini.google.com | N/A |
| API | Meta Model API | Yes | Yes | Yes | N/A |
What Free Actually Gets You
Muse Spark is free in the Meta AI app and at meta.ai. The original release put all three reasoning modes, voice input and image analysis behind no paywall at all, and Muse Spark 1.1 is free in Thinking mode on the same surfaces. You still do not need a subscription to use Meta’s current model.
What changed is the other side of it. Since July 9, 2026 Meta also sells the model through the Meta Model API at $1.25 input / $4.25 output per million tokens, with $20 in free credits. That is Meta’s first paid model, and it prices well under the Claude and GPT flagships.
The other free tiers are narrower than they look. Free ChatGPT runs GPT-5.5 Instant rather than GPT-5.6, free Claude runs Sonnet 5 with tight limits, and free Gemini runs 3.6 Flash rather than a Pro model. On the Intelligence Index that puts Muse Spark’s free tier at 51 against Gemini 3.6 Flash at 50, which is much closer than the paid comparison.
Mac and Desktop Access
This matters if you work on a Mac. ChatGPT and Claude both ship native Mac apps with companion windows, keyboard shortcuts and system-wide access. Google shipped its Gemini Mac app on April 15, 2026, free, for macOS 15 and up, summoned with Option and Space. Muse Spark has none of that; you are limited to a browser tab or the Meta AI phone app.
There is another way round that if you want several models from one place on your Mac. Fello AI gives you ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Grok and DeepSeek in a single app for $9.99/month, rated 4.7 stars across 27,000+ reviews. One price for every major model, with the flexibility to switch based on the task.
Which AI Model Should You Use for What?
No single model wins everything. Here is the practical split based on the boards above and how these models actually behave.
Pick Muse Spark When
Open Muse Spark when you need a capable model and do not want to pay anything, and especially when the job is health-related or visual. It is the strongest free option we have tested for reading medical information, interpreting charts and figures, and pulling detail out of a photographed label. Its conversational tone suits social copy better than the paid flagships do.
Contemplating mode is the other reason to reach for it. On structured problems with several valid approaches, running reasoning agents in parallel gets closer to the paid models than the headline index score suggests. On open-ended abstract problems it does not, so keep the expectation matched to the task.
Pick ChatGPT (GPT-5.6) When
GPT-5.6 is the reliable all-rounder, and it is the pick for code you write in short, well-scoped bursts because Sol leads the Coding Index at 78.3. It is also the most polished general-purpose experience of the four, with the deepest set of integrations and third-party tooling around it.
The tiering is useful rather than cosmetic. Sol is the flagship at $5 / $30 per million tokens. Terra sits at $2.50 / $15 for most of that quality, and Luna runs $1 / $6 for high-volume work where speed matters more than depth.
Pick Claude (Opus 5 or Sonnet 5) When
Claude is the pick when you hand the model a long, multi-step job rather than a single question. Opus 5 leads the Agentic Index at 55.3, the board that measures whether a model stays coherent across a messy task. It also holds a 1M token context window for the long documents that come with that kind of work.
It is also still the best writer of the four if you care about voice rather than correctness alone. For desktop work, Claude Cowork and Computer Use on Mac both give Claude a way to act on your machine rather than just answer in a chat window.
Pick Gemini 3.1 Pro When
Gemini earns its place when your work is image, video or document heavy, or when you already live inside Google Workspace, Search and Drive. It is a strong pick for factual, research-heavy writing where accuracy matters more than voice, and its free tier runs a current model in Gemini 3.6 Flash rather than a cut-down one.
Be clear-eyed about where it sits on the boards, though. Gemini 3.1 Pro scores 46 on the Intelligence Index and 21.4 on the Agentic Index, both well behind the other three here. It wins on ecosystem and multimodal range, not on raw measured capability.
One correction worth stating plainly, because it circulates constantly. There is no Gemini 3.5 Pro and no Gemini 3.6 Pro. Google’s published model catalog lists Gemini 3.1 Pro as its newest Pro model, still labelled preview. Its newest stable Flash model is Gemini 3.6 Flash. Our review of the Gemini 3.5 generation covers what Google actually shipped.
If you find yourself switching between two or three of these depending on the day, that is normal. Our best AI models ranking tracks which model leads in each category as things change.
The Bottom Line
Muse Spark 1.1 is a strong free model. Scoring 51 on the Intelligence Index while costing nothing in the Meta AI app is impressive, and its health, medical and chart-reading work leads the free field. Contemplating mode remains a real idea rather than a marketing one.
But best free model is not the same as best model, and the distance grew in July. Claude Opus 5 at 61 and GPT-5.6 Sol at 59 are ten and eight points clear, and both come with desktop apps, mature APIs and ecosystems Muse Spark does not have. If you code, write professionally, or need Mac integration, the subscriptions still justify themselves.
The smartest approach is not choosing one model. It is having access to the right model for each task. Whether that means switching between free tiers or using one Mac app to reach all of them, the winners in 2026 are the people who match the tool to the job.
For a deeper breakdown of Muse Spark’s benchmarks and features, check our full explainer. And if you want to see how Claude stacks up against ChatGPT or how ChatGPT compares to Gemini in more detail, we have dedicated comparisons for those matchups too.
FAQ
Is Muse Spark really free?
Yes, in the Meta AI app and at meta.ai. The original release made all three reasoning modes (Instant, Thinking, Contemplating), voice input and image analysis free with a Meta account, and Muse Spark 1.1 is free in Thinking mode on the same surfaces. Since July 9, 2026 Meta also sells the model through the paid Meta Model API at $1.25 input and $4.25 output per million tokens, but that is for developers, not app users.
Can I use Muse Spark on Mac?
Only through a web browser at meta.ai. There is no native Mac desktop app. ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini all ship Mac apps now, Google’s since April 15, 2026.
Is Muse Spark better than ChatGPT for coding?
No. On the Artificial Analysis Coding Index, GPT-5.6 Sol scores 78.3 and Muse Spark 1.1 scores 71.3. Version 1.1 narrowed the gap considerably from the original release, but ChatGPT and Claude are both still ahead.
Which AI is best for coding in 2026?
It depends on the shape of the work, and no model sweeps it. GPT-5.6 Sol leads the Artificial Analysis Coding Index at 78.3 with Claude Opus 5 at 78.0, while Opus 5 leads the Agentic Index at 55.3 against Sol’s 54.0. Short well-scoped tasks favour Sol; long multi-step jobs favour Opus 5.
What is Contemplating mode?
Contemplating mode runs multiple reasoning agents in parallel instead of one agent thinking for longer. At launch it scored 50.2% on Humanity’s Last Exam, ahead of both GPT-5.4 Pro and Gemini Deep Think. It is best for complex problems with several valid approaches.
Should I switch from ChatGPT to Muse Spark?
For coding or professional writing, no; ChatGPT and Claude still win. For health questions, chart analysis or casual chat without paying, yes. If you rely on Mac desktop integration, Muse Spark is not a replacement.
