LLMBenchmark.ai

Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GLM 5.3 vs Muse Spark Open

Updated October 21, 2026. 26 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

GLM 5.3Z.ai
Coding
73.1
Overall
44.8
Output $/M
$1.40
20
Muse Spark OpenMeta
Coding
62.1
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$4.25
6
vs boards won of 26 shared

Decision reading

Pick GLM 5.3 for coding: it scores 73.1 on the Vibe Coding Index against 62.1 for Muse Spark Open.

Pick Muse Spark Open when what matters is ALE-Bench or LiveBench research, where it leads.

Shared results
26
GLM 5.3 only
74
Muse Spark Open only
0
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 5.3 73.1 from 2 benchmarks, Muse Spark Open 62.1 from 2 benchmarks.
Widest category
Agentic work, 14.4 points apart on average over 8 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
LiveBench browser: GLM 5.3 0.0% against Muse Spark Open 36.0%, 36.0 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GLM 5.3 $1.40 against Muse Spark Open $4.25 per million output tokens, 3.0x 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 5.3BarsMuse Spark OpenTies
Coding81
Intelligence10
Agentic work53
Reasoning21
Web design21
General20
All shared boards206
CodingLike-for-likeFour of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index81
Coding benchmarks for GLM 5.3 and Muse Spark Open
BenchmarkGLM 5.3Muse Spark OpenLeader
LiveBench coding82.8%73.6%GLM 5.3
LMArena WebDev16211528GLM 5.3
AA Coding Index74.8Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)80.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)95.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI)38.9%6.6%GLM 5.3
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)78.1%76.2%GLM 5.3
Code migration (Vals AI)44.2%21.2%GLM 5.3
ProgramBench (Vals AI)1.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
IOI (Vals AI)68.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI)71.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Vibe Code Bench 1-100 (Vals AI)20.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
SkillsBench (Vals AI)47.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
CyberBench (Vals AI)72.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
SciCode59.0%58.4%GLM 5.3
FrontierCode40.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
FrontierSWE30.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
WeirdML75.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
ALE-Bench1317.41590.1Muse Spark Open
LMArena Text: coding1497Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: software and IT1493Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena WebDev: React16411529GLM 5.3
LMArena WebDev: HTML15951495GLM 5.3
Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Intelligence benchmarks for GLM 5.3 and Muse Spark Open
BenchmarkGLM 5.3Muse Spark OpenLeader
AA Intelligence Index44.8Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Epoch Capabilities Index156.0155.1GLM 5.3
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index53
Agentic work benchmarks for GLM 5.3 and Muse Spark Open
BenchmarkGLM 5.3Muse Spark OpenLeader
AA Agentic Index53.1Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Design Arena: agents building mobile apps1194Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Design Arena: HTML slides1189Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Design Arena: PowerPoint slides1255Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LiveBench research73.2%80.3%Muse Spark Open
LiveBench browser0.0%36.0%Muse Spark Open
LiveBench long agentic35.9%18.9%GLM 5.3
SREBench (Vals AI)9.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Finance Agent (Vals AI)55.8%61.3%Muse Spark Open
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)39.7%26.3%GLM 5.3
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)49.0%38.5%GLM 5.3
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark (Vals AI)14.6%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)56.3%53.7%GLM 5.3
Terminal-Bench-Science (Vals AI)5.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
APEX-Agents56.6%33.4%GLM 5.3
Vending-Bench 2$8,164Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 23 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index21
Reasoning benchmarks for GLM 5.3 and Muse Spark Open
BenchmarkGLM 5.3Muse Spark OpenLeader
GPQA Diamond88.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LiveBench reasoning85.8%73.7%GLM 5.3
MysteryMechanism (Vals AI)23.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)91.7%89.0%GLM 5.3
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)42.3%43.9%Muse Spark Open
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)90.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Chess puzzles37.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Mystery game puzzles33.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts1490Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: expert1514Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English1496Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 10 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for GLM 5.3 and Muse Spark Open
BenchmarkGLM 5.3Muse Spark OpenLeader
OTIS Mock AIME91.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 368.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
FrontierMath, tier 429.3%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
ProofBench49.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: math1495Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: mathematical work1497Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index9 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for GLM 5.3 and Muse Spark Open
BenchmarkGLM 5.3Muse Spark OpenLeader
MMLU Pro86.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)84.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)72.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
MedCode (Vals AI)42.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
SimpleQA Verified41.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: science1498Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare1481Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: legal and government1473Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: business and finance1459Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index21
Web design benchmarks for GLM 5.3 and Muse Spark Open
BenchmarkGLM 5.3Muse Spark OpenLeader
Design Arena: websites12951311Muse Spark Open
Design Arena: UI components1314Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Design Arena: game dev13111290GLM 5.3
Design Arena: data viz1260Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Design Arena: 3D1332Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Design Arena: all code categories1304Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Design Arena: SVG1292Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Design Arena: ASCII art1213Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LiveBench design77.3%60.3%GLM 5.3
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
General benchmarks for GLM 5.3 and Muse Spark Open
BenchmarkGLM 5.3Muse Spark OpenLeader
Vals Index59.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LiveBench data analysis70.2%60.2%GLM 5.3
Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI)68.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)88.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)79.7%78.3%GLM 5.3
DTBench87.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMCA55.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text1474Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: instruction following1479Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: creative writing1458Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: English1482Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: non-English1459Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: Chinese1532Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: German1488Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: Japanese1460Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: Korean1460Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: French1503Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: Spanish1462Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: Russian1469Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: Polish1466Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn1472Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: longer queries1483Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: writing and language1469Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and media1447Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 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 5.3 and Muse Spark Open
BenchmarkGLM 5.3Muse 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 5.3$0.0008Fits in one request
Muse Spark Open$0.0034Fits in one request

GLM 5.3 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GLM 5.3$0.0081Fits in one request
Muse Spark Open$0.075Fits in one request

GLM 5.3 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GLM 5.3$0.030Fits in one request
Muse Spark Open$0.292Fits in one request

GLM 5.3 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 5.3 and Muse Spark Open
SpecificationZ.ai GLM 5.3Meta Muse Spark Open
MakerZ.aiMeta
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedAugust 18, 2026October 15, 2026
Context window1.05M1.05M
Input $/Mtok$0.079$1.25
Output $/Mtok$1.40$4.25
Coding index73.162.1
Independent measurements behind it22
Cost per solved task$0.36Not computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GLM 5.3 better than Muse Spark Open for coding?

Pick GLM 5.3 for coding: it scores 73.1 on the Vibe Coding Index against 62.1 for Muse Spark Open. Pick Muse Spark Open when what matters is ALE-Bench or LiveBench research, where it leads.

Which is cheaper, GLM 5.3 or Muse Spark Open?

GLM 5.3 costs $0.079 per million input tokens and $1.40 per million output tokens; Muse Spark Open costs $1.25 and $4.25. Cost per solved task is known for GLM 5.3 only.

Which has the bigger context window, GLM 5.3 or Muse Spark Open?

Neither: both take 1.05M tokens.

How many benchmarks is the GLM 5.3 vs Muse Spark Open comparison based on?

26 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. GLM 5.3's coding index rests on 2 independent benchmarks 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

Embed this comparison on your site

Free under CC BY 4.0, while the source link stays visible. Preview the frame · Terms and other embeds

<iframe src="https://llmbenchmark.ai/embed/compare/glm-5-3-vs-meta-muse-spark-open" title="GLM 5.3 vs Muse Spark Open, LLMBenchmark.ai" width="100%" height="360" style="border:0;max-width:100%" loading="lazy"></iframe>
<p style="font:13px/1.4 sans-serif;margin:6px 0 0">Source: <a href="https://llmbenchmark.ai/compare/glm-5-3-vs-meta-muse-spark-open">LLMBenchmark.ai, GLM 5.3 vs Muse Spark Open</a></p>