Muse Spark 1.3 (max) vs. Quasar 438B (max, based on GLM-5.2)
Comparison between Muse Spark 1.3 (max) and Quasar 438B (max, based on GLM-5.2) across intelligence, price, speed, context window and more.
For details relating to our methodology, see our Methodology page.
Highlights
Model Comparison
Muse Spark 1.3 (max) | Quasar 438B (max, based on GLM-5.2) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence Index | 53 | 34* | Muse Spark 1.3 (max) is more intelligent than Quasar 438B (max, based on GLM-5.2) |
| Price per 1M Tokens | $0.78 | $0.72 | Quasar 438B (max, based on GLM-5.2) is cheaper than Muse Spark 1.3 (max) |
| Output Speed | 190 tokens/s | 186 tokens/s | Muse Spark 1.3 (max) is faster than Quasar 438B (max, based on GLM-5.2) |
| Time to First Token | 18.69s | 0.95s | Quasar 438B (max, based on GLM-5.2) responds faster than Muse Spark 1.3 (max) |
| Context Window | 1000k tokens~1,500 A4 pages of size 12 Arial font | 1000k tokens~1,500 A4 pages of size 12 Arial font | Both Muse Spark 1.3 (max) and Quasar 438B (max, based on GLM-5.2) have the same sized context window |
| Release Date | September 2026 | August 2026 | Muse Spark 1.3 (max) has a more recent release date than Quasar 438B (max, based on GLM-5.2) |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes | Both Muse Spark 1.3 (max) and Quasar 438B (max, based on GLM-5.2) have reasoning |
| Image Input Support | Yes | No | Muse Spark 1.3 (max) has image input support while Quasar 438B (max, based on GLM-5.2) does not |
| Open Source (Weights) | No | No | Both Muse Spark 1.3 (max) and Quasar 438B (max, based on GLM-5.2) are proprietary |
IntelligenceUpdated
Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index
Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index by Open Weights / Proprietary
Intelligence Evaluations
Agentic knowledge work, (Elo-500)/2000
Agentic real-world work tasks, (Elo-500)/2000
Agentic tool use
Agentic coding & terminal use
Coding
Reasoning & knowledge
Professional document reasoning, All-pass
Physics reasoning
Knowledge
1 - hallucination rate
Long context reasoning
Agentic SaaS workflows
Legal agentic work, criterion pass rate
Agentic business operations
Scientific reasoning
Quantitative analysis on spreadsheets & documents
Instruction following
Long-horizon agentic tasks
Kubernetes incident root-cause analysis
Visual reasoning
AA-Briefcase
AA-Briefcase Elo
AA-Omniscience
AA-Omniscience Index
Openness Index
Artificial Analysis Openness Index: Score
Intelligence Index Comparisons
Intelligence Index vs. Cost per Intelligence Index Task
Token Use
Output Tokens per Intelligence Index Task
Cost
Cost per Intelligence Index Task
Cost to Run Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index
Pricing: Cache Hit, Input, and Output
Context Window
Context Window
Speed
Measured by Output Speed (tokens per second)
Output Speed
Time per Intelligence Index Task
Latency
Measured by Time (seconds) to First Token
Latency: Time To First Answer Token
End-to-End Response Time
Seconds to output 500 tokens, calculated based on time to first token, 'thinking' time for reasoning models, and output speed
End-to-End Response Time
Model Size (Open Weights Models Only)
Model Size: Total and Active Parameters
Frequently Asked Questions
Muse Spark 1.3 (max) is more intelligent. Muse Spark 1.3 (max) scores 53, compared with Quasar 438B (max, based on GLM-5.2) at 34 (estimated) on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index.
Muse Spark 1.3 (max) is faster. Muse Spark 1.3 (max) generates 190.1 tokens per second, compared with Quasar 438B (max, based on GLM-5.2) at 185.9 tokens per second.
Quasar 438B (max, based on GLM-5.2) is cheaper. Quasar 438B (max, based on GLM-5.2) costs $0.72 per 1M tokens, compared with Muse Spark 1.3 (max) at $0.78 per 1M tokens (7:2:1 cache hit/input/output ratio).
Quasar 438B (max, based on GLM-5.2) has lower latency. Quasar 438B (max, based on GLM-5.2) has a time to first token of 0.95s, compared with Muse Spark 1.3 (max) at 18.69s.
Both models have a context window of 1.0M tokens.