Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GLM 5.2 vs Muse Spark Open

Updated October 21, 2026. 17 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

GLM 5.2Z.ai
Coding
57.7
Overall
33.7
Output $/M
$7.00
7
Muse Spark OpenMeta
Coding
62.1
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$4.25
9
vs boards won of 17 shared, 1 tied

Decision reading

Pick Muse Spark Open for coding: it scores 62.1 on the Vibe Coding Index against 57.7 for GLM 5.2.

Pick GLM 5.2 when what matters is LMArena WebDev or Code migration (Vals AI), where it leads.

Shared results
17
GLM 5.2 only
80
Muse Spark Open only
9
Like-for-like categories
6 of 9

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results only one model has describe coverage, not superiority.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
GLM 5.2 57.7 from 1 benchmark, Muse Spark Open 62.1 from 2 benchmarks.
Widest category
Coding, 12.7 points apart on average over 7 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
ALE-Bench: GLM 5.2 1047.0 against Muse Spark Open 1590.1, 18.1 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GLM 5.2 $7.00 against Muse Spark Open $4.25 per million output tokens, 1.6x apart.
Context window
Both take 1.05M tokens.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryGLM 5.2BarsMuse Spark OpenTies
Coding43
Intelligence01
Agentic work22
Reasoning11
Web design02
General001 tie
All shared boards791 tie
CodingLike-for-likeFour of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index43
Coding benchmarks for GLM 5.2 and Muse Spark Open
BenchmarkGLM 5.2Muse Spark OpenLeader
LiveBench codingNot measured73.6%Only Muse Spark Open measured
LMArena WebDev16041528GLM 5.2
AA Coding Index68.8Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)69.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)82.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI)Not measured6.6%Only Muse Spark Open measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)64.0%76.2%Muse Spark Open
Code migration (Vals AI)37.9%21.2%GLM 5.2
ProgramBench (Vals AI)0.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI)67.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
SkillsBench (Vals AI)45.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
SciCode51.2%58.4%Muse Spark Open
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)50.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
FrontierCode24.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
WeirdML70.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
ALE-Bench1047.01590.1Muse Spark Open
LMArena Text: coding1487Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
LMArena Text: software and IT1486Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
LMArena WebDev: React16171529GLM 5.2
LMArena WebDev: HTML15651495GLM 5.2
Neither model has a result on the other 18 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for GLM 5.2 and Muse Spark Open
BenchmarkGLM 5.2Muse Spark OpenLeader
AA Intelligence Index33.7Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Epoch Capabilities Index151.9155.1Muse Spark Open
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index22
Agentic work benchmarks for GLM 5.2 and Muse Spark Open
BenchmarkGLM 5.2Muse Spark OpenLeader
AA Agentic Index38.4Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Design Arena: agents building web apps1222Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Design Arena: agents building full-stack apps1241Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Design Arena: agents building mobile apps1160Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Design Arena: agents building Android apps1184Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Design Arena: agents building Godot games1142Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Design Arena: agents building games1206Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Design Arena: HTML slides1175Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Design Arena: PowerPoint slides1195Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
LiveBench researchNot measured80.3%Only Muse Spark Open measured
LiveBench browserNot measured36.0%Only Muse Spark Open measured
LiveBench long agenticNot measured18.9%Only Muse Spark Open measured
SREBench (Vals AI)0.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Finance Agent (Vals AI)49.7%61.3%Muse Spark Open
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)Not measured26.3%Only Muse Spark Open measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)31.3%38.5%Muse Spark Open
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)61.5%53.7%GLM 5.2
τ²-Bench Telecom99.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
APEX-Agents45.2%33.4%GLM 5.2
PostTrainBench31.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Vending-Bench 2$8,314Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 18 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index11
Reasoning benchmarks for GLM 5.2 and Muse Spark Open
BenchmarkGLM 5.2Muse Spark OpenLeader
GPQA Diamond85.6%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
LiveBench reasoningNot measured73.7%Only Muse Spark Open measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)89.5%89.0%GLM 5.2
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)41.1%43.9%Muse Spark Open
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)91.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
ARC-AGI77.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
ARC-AGI-222.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
SimpleBench58.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Chess puzzles22.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Mystery game puzzles19.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
EBR-bench9.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts1481Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
LMArena Text: expert1487Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English1481Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for GLM 5.2 and Muse Spark Open
BenchmarkGLM 5.2Muse Spark OpenLeader
OTIS Mock AIME86.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 359.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
FrontierMath, tier 429.3%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
ProofBench35.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
LMArena Text: math1483Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
LMArena Text: mathematical work1489Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for GLM 5.2 and Muse Spark Open
BenchmarkGLM 5.2Muse Spark OpenLeader
MMLU Pro86.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)84.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)66.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)73.3%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
MedCode (Vals AI)40.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
SimpleQA Verified34.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
LMArena Text: science1489Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare1475Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
LMArena Text: legal and government1486Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
LMArena Text: business and finance1451Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Web design benchmarks for GLM 5.2 and Muse Spark Open
BenchmarkGLM 5.2Muse Spark OpenLeader
Design Arena: websites12851311Muse Spark Open
Design Arena: UI components1296Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Design Arena: game dev12681290Muse Spark Open
Design Arena: data viz1285Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Design Arena: 3D1288Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Design Arena: all code categories1288Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Design Arena: SVG1214Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Design Arena: ASCII art1190Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
LiveBench designNot measured60.3%Only Muse Spark Open measured
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index00
General benchmarks for GLM 5.2 and Muse Spark Open
BenchmarkGLM 5.2Muse Spark OpenLeader
LiveBench data analysisNot measured60.2%Only Muse Spark Open measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)83.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
IFBench73.3%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)78.3%78.3%Tie
DTBench93.6%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
LMCA45.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Surface Evolver Bench55.6%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
LMArena Text1470Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
LMArena Text: instruction following1466Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
LMArena Text: creative writing1463Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
LMArena Text: English1475Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
LMArena Text: non-English1459Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
LMArena Text: Chinese1522Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
LMArena Text: German1470Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
LMArena Text: Japanese1450Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
LMArena Text: Korean1440Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
LMArena Text: French1479Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
LMArena Text: Spanish1478Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
LMArena Text: Russian1468Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
LMArena Text: Polish1456Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn1469Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
LMArena Text: longer queries1480Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
LMArena Text: writing and language1463Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and media1450Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 22 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for GLM 5.2 and Muse Spark Open
BenchmarkGLM 5.2Muse Spark OpenLeader
Neither model has a result on 5 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

GLM 5.2$0.0035Fits in one request
Muse Spark Open$0.0034Fits in one request

Muse Spark Open costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GLM 5.2$0.023Fits in one request
Muse Spark Open$0.075Fits in one request

GLM 5.2 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GLM 5.2$0.077Fits in one request
Muse Spark Open$0.292Fits in one request

GLM 5.2 costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of GLM 5.2 and Muse Spark Open
SpecificationZ.ai GLM 5.2Meta Muse Spark Open
MakerZ.aiMeta
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedJune 16, 2026October 15, 2026
Context window1.05M1.05M
Input $/Mtok$0.0341$1.25
Output $/Mtok$7.00$4.25
Coding index57.762.1
Independent measurements behind it12
Cost per solved task$0.86Not computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GLM 5.2 better than Muse Spark Open for coding?

Pick Muse Spark Open for coding: it scores 62.1 on the Vibe Coding Index against 57.7 for GLM 5.2. Pick GLM 5.2 when what matters is LMArena WebDev or Code migration (Vals AI), where it leads.

Which is cheaper, GLM 5.2 or Muse Spark Open?

GLM 5.2 costs $0.0341 per million input tokens and $7.00 per million output tokens; Muse Spark Open costs $1.25 and $4.25. Cost per solved task is known for GLM 5.2 only.

Which has the bigger context window, GLM 5.2 or Muse Spark Open?

Neither: both take 1.05M tokens.

How many benchmarks is the GLM 5.2 vs Muse Spark Open comparison based on?

17 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. GLM 5.2's coding index rests on 1 independent benchmark and Muse Spark Open's on 2. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next