// head_to_head
Muse Spark 1.3 vs Pareto
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.
Muse Spark 1.3 is the cheaper of the two; neither can be ranked on quality here.
Pareto 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
unbiased
Pareto
- Blended / 1M
- $3.75
- Context
- 262K
- Released
- Sep 17, 2026
- Overall score
- Not evaluated
Specs and pricing
| Metric | Muse Spark 1.3 | Pareto |
|---|---|---|
| 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. | $2.00win | $3.75 |
| Input price / 1M | $1.25win | $2.50 |
| Output price / 1M | $4.25win | $7.50 |
| Cached input / 1M Price of an input token served from the prompt cache, where the provider publishes one. | $0.150win | $0.250 |
| Context window | 1.0Mwin | 262K |
| Max output tokens | 944Kwin | 131K |
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, Pareto below, both out of 100.
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.
| Workload | Muse Spark 1.3 | Pareto |
|---|---|---|
| Support chatbot 1.2K in / 400 out × 200K requests | $560.80/mo | $1,038/mo |
| RAG assistant 8K in / 600 out × 100K requests | $815.00/mo | $1,550/mo |
| Coding agent 40K in / 4K out × 20K requests | $724.00/mo | $1,340/mo |
| Document extraction 20K in / 1.5K out × 50K requests | $1,514/mo | $2,950/mo |
| Bulk classification 500 in / 20 out × 5M requests | $3,000/mo | $5,875/mo |
Which should you pick?
You need to fit large documents in one call
Muse Spark 1.3
Wider context window — 1.0M against 262K.
Muse Spark 1.3 vs Pareto FAQ
Which is better, Muse Spark 1.3 or Pareto?
Muse Spark 1.3 is the cheaper of the two; neither can be ranked on quality here. Pareto 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 Pareto?
Muse Spark 1.3 is cheaper. On a 3:1 input:output blend, Muse Spark 1.3 lists at $2.00 per million tokens and Pareto at $3.75 — Muse Spark 1.3 is 1.9× cheaper. Input and output are priced separately — Muse Spark 1.3 charges $1.25 in and $4.25 out, Pareto charges $2.50 and $7.50 — so the model that looks cheaper flips depending on how output-heavy your workload is.
Does Muse Spark 1.3 or Pareto have a bigger context window?
Muse Spark 1.3 has the larger context window: 1.0M for Muse Spark 1.3 against 262K for Pareto. 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 Pareto support prompt caching?
Both publish a cached-input rate: $0.150 per million for Muse Spark 1.3 and $0.250 for Pareto, against full input rates of $1.25 and $2.50. On a workload with a long stable prefix — a system prompt, a tool schema, a retrieved corpus — that changes the economics more than the headline price does.
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.
- Scores — LiveBench 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.