// head_to_head

Muse Spark 1.3 vs Kimi K2 0905

Published LiveBench scores across all seven categories, live list pricing, context windows, and the measured cost of a point of capability — for both models, side by side.

OpenRouter + LiveBenchAll comparisonsFull leaderboard

Kimi K2 0905 is the cheaper of the two; neither can be ranked on quality here.

Kimi K2 0905 does not have a published LiveBench run, so this comparison covers price, context and declared capabilities only. A missing score means "not evaluated", not "worse" — the right way to separate these two is an eval on your own workload.

meta

Muse Spark 1.3

Blended / 1M
$2.00
Context
1.0M
Released
Sep 2, 2026
Overall score
81.6
reasoningtool callingimage inputvideo inputfile inputaudio inputprompt caching

moonshotai

Kimi K2 0905

Blended / 1M
$1.07
Context
262K
Released
Sep 4, 2025
Overall score
Not evaluated
tool calling

Specs and pricing

MetricMuse Spark 1.3Kimi K2 0905
LiveBench overall

Mean of the seven LiveBench category scores, 0–100. Higher is better.

81.6
Cost per point

Measured benchmark spend divided by overall score — dollars per point of capability.

$0.1210
Blended price / 1M

3:1 input:output mix, the usual shape of production traffic.

$2.00$1.07win
Input price / 1M$1.25$0.600win
Output price / 1M$4.25$2.50win
Cached input / 1M

Price of an input token served from the prompt cache, where the provider publishes one.

$0.150
Context window1.0Mwin262K
Max output tokens944Kwin98K

Benchmarks by category

An overall score averages away the thing you probably care about. These are the seven LiveBench categories scored separately — Muse Spark 1.3 on top, Kimi K2 0905 below, both out of 100.

Agentic coding
64.1
Coding
81.1
Reasoning
89.7
Mathematics
95.9
Data analysis
79.6
Language
82.8
Instruction following
78.0

What each one costs to run

Per-token prices are hard to feel. These are monthly list costs for both models across five workload shapes, using each provider's published cached-input rate where there is one.

WorkloadMuse Spark 1.3Kimi K2 0905
Support chatbot

1.2K in / 400 out × 200K requests

$560.80/mo$344.00/mo
RAG assistant

8K in / 600 out × 100K requests

$815.00/mo$630.00/mo
Coding agent

40K in / 4K out × 20K requests

$724.00/mo$680.00/mo
Document extraction

20K in / 1.5K out × 50K requests

$1,514/mo$787.50/mo
Bulk classification

500 in / 20 out × 5M requests

$3,000/mo$1,750/mo
Run these two through the cost calculator

Which should you pick?

You need to fit large documents in one call

Muse Spark 1.3

Wider context window — 1.0M against 262K.

You are cost-constrained

Kimi K2 0905

Cheaper on blended list price at $1.07 per million tokens.

Muse Spark 1.3 vs Kimi K2 0905 FAQ

Which is better, Muse Spark 1.3 or Kimi K2 0905?

Kimi K2 0905 is the cheaper of the two; neither can be ranked on quality here. Kimi K2 0905 does not have a published LiveBench run, so this comparison covers price, context and declared capabilities only. A missing score means "not evaluated", not "worse" — the right way to separate these two is an eval on your own workload.

Is Muse Spark 1.3 cheaper than Kimi K2 0905?

Kimi K2 0905 is cheaper. On a 3:1 input:output blend, Muse Spark 1.3 lists at $2.00 per million tokens and Kimi K2 0905 at $1.07 — Kimi K2 0905 is 1.9× cheaper. Input and output are priced separately — Muse Spark 1.3 charges $1.25 in and $4.25 out, Kimi K2 0905 charges $0.600 and $2.50 — so the model that looks cheaper flips depending on how output-heavy your workload is.

Does Muse Spark 1.3 or Kimi K2 0905 have a bigger context window?

Muse Spark 1.3 has the larger context window: 1.0M for Muse Spark 1.3 against 262K for Kimi K2 0905. Note that a window you can fill is not a window you should fill — retrieval quality usually degrades well before the limit, and you pay for every token you put in it.

Do Muse Spark 1.3 and Kimi K2 0905 support prompt caching?

Muse Spark 1.3 publishes a cached-input rate of $0.150 per million tokens against a full input rate of $1.25. The catalogue lists no separate cached rate for Kimi K2 0905, which means the provider does not price it separately here — not that caching is unavailable.

Related comparisons

How these numbers are produced

  • Price — provider list price from OpenRouter, refreshed every 15 minutes. “Blended” is a 3:1 input:output mix.
  • ScoresLiveBench release 2026-06-25, using their own category map. Each model shows its strongest published run. A blank means “not evaluated”, never “bad”.
  • Cost per point — the measured dollars LiveBench spent on the run, divided by the score it earned.
  • “Win” — awarded only past a threshold: one full point on a benchmark score, 10% on a price, 25% on a context window. Anything tighter reports as a tie, because effort settings alone move a LiveBench score by more than that.

Published benchmarks rank models on someone else's tasks. Before committing, see LLM & agent evaluation for building an eval on your own.