// head_to_head

Muse Spark 1.3 vs Reka Flash 3

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

Reka Flash 3 is the cheaper of the two; neither can be ranked on quality here.

Reka Flash 3 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

rekaai

Reka Flash 3

Blended / 1M
$0.125
Context
66K
Released
Mar 12, 2025
Overall score
Not evaluated
reasoning

Specs and pricing

MetricMuse Spark 1.3Reka Flash 3
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$0.125win
Input price / 1M$1.25$0.100win
Output price / 1M$4.25$0.200win
Cached input / 1M

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

$0.150
Context window1.0Mwin66K
Max output tokens944Kwin59K

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, Reka Flash 3 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 1.3Reka Flash 3
Support chatbot

1.2K in / 400 out × 200K requests

$560.80/mo$40.00/mo
RAG assistant

8K in / 600 out × 100K requests

$815.00/mo$92.00/mo
Coding agent

40K in / 4K out × 20K requests

$724.00/mo$96.00/mo
Document extraction

20K in / 1.5K out × 50K requests

$1,514/mo$115.00/mo
Bulk classification

500 in / 20 out × 5M requests

$3,000/mo$270.00/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 66K.

You are cost-constrained

Reka Flash 3

Cheaper on blended list price at $0.125 per million tokens.

Muse Spark 1.3 vs Reka Flash 3 FAQ

Which is better, Muse Spark 1.3 or Reka Flash 3?

Reka Flash 3 is the cheaper of the two; neither can be ranked on quality here. Reka Flash 3 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 Reka Flash 3?

Reka Flash 3 is cheaper. On a 3:1 input:output blend, Muse Spark 1.3 lists at $2.00 per million tokens and Reka Flash 3 at $0.125 — Reka Flash 3 is 16× cheaper. Input and output are priced separately — Muse Spark 1.3 charges $1.25 in and $4.25 out, Reka Flash 3 charges $0.100 and $0.200 — so the model that looks cheaper flips depending on how output-heavy your workload is.

Does Muse Spark 1.3 or Reka Flash 3 have a bigger context window?

Muse Spark 1.3 has the larger context window: 1.0M for Muse Spark 1.3 against 66K for Reka Flash 3. 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 Reka Flash 3 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 Reka Flash 3, 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.