Skip to content

Seed 1.6 vs Muse Spark 1.3

Seed 1.6

ByteDance

40#353
vs
Signal-by-Signal Comparison
SignalSeed 1.6DeltaMuse Spark 1.3
Capabilities
83
-17
100
Pricing
98
+2
96
Context window size
86
-9
96
Recency
83
-17
100
Output Capacity
72
-23
96
Overall Result
1 wins
of 5
4 wins
Muse Spark 1.3 wins 4 of 5 signals

Score History

Score History (32 data points)
Seed 1.6Muse Spark 1.3
Seed 1.6

40

current score

Leader

Muse Spark 1.3

right now

Muse Spark 1.3

80.9

current score

LMMarketCap.com
Interactive Price Comparison
100Kcalls/month
1,000tokens (~1,333 chars)
500tokens (~667 chars)

Seed 1.6

ByteDance

Best Value
Per request$0.001250
Daily$4.17
Monthly$125.00
Annual$1500.00

Muse Spark 1.3

meta

Per request$0.003375
Daily$11.25
Monthly$337.50
Annual$4050.00

Seed 1.6 saves you $212.50/month

That's $2550.00/year compared to Muse Spark 1.3 at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.

63% cheaper
Choose Seed 1.6 for cost optimization

Seed 1.6 pricing:
Input:$0.25/M tokens
Output:$2.00/M tokens
Muse Spark 1.3 pricing:
Input:$1.25/M tokens
Output:$4.25/M tokens
Seed 1.6

ByteDance

40

Composite Score

Winner
Muse Spark 1.3

meta

81

Composite Score

Signal-by-Signal Comparison
MetricSeed 1.6Muse Spark 1.3Winner
Overall Score
40
81
Muse Spark 1.3
Rank#353#83
Muse Spark 1.3
Quality Rank#353#83
Muse Spark 1.3
Adoption Rank#353#83
Muse Spark 1.3
Parameters------
Context Window262K1049K
Muse Spark 1.3
Pricing$0.25/$2.00/M$1.25/$4.25/M--
Signal Scores
Capabilities
83
100
Muse Spark 1.3
Pricing
98
96
Seed 1.6
Context window size
86
96
Muse Spark 1.3
Recency
83
100
Muse Spark 1.3
Output Capacity
72
96
Muse Spark 1.3
Benchmark Interpretation

Our score (0-100) is driven by benchmark performance (90%) from Arena Elo ratings, MMLU, GPQA, HumanEval, SWE-bench, and 15+ standardized evaluations. Capabilities and context window serve as tiebreakers (10%). Learn more about our methodology.

Seed 1.6Entry Level

Scores 40/100 (rank #353), placing it in the top -21% of all 290 models tracked.

Raw Quality0/100
Cost Efficiency0/100
Speed0/100
Muse Spark 1.3Strong Performer

Scores 81/100 (rank #83), placing it in the top 72% of all 290 models tracked.

Raw Quality0/100
Cost Efficiency0/100
Speed0/100

Muse Spark 1.3 has a 41-point advantage, which typically translates to noticeably stronger performance on complex reasoning, code generation, and multi-step tasks.

When to Use Each Model

Choose Seed 1.6 when you need:

  • High-volume production workloads where API costs must be minimized
  • Step-by-step reasoning and chain-of-thought problem solving

Choose Muse Spark 1.3 when you need:

  • Processing long documents or large codebases (1049K token context)
  • Step-by-step reasoning and chain-of-thought problem solving
Cost-Performance Analysis
Seed 1.6Best Value
Input cost$0.25/M tokens
Output cost$2.00/M tokens
Cost per quality point$0.056
Est. monthly (1M tokens/day)$33.75
Muse Spark 1.3
Input cost$1.25/M tokens
Output cost$4.25/M tokens
Cost per quality point$0.068
Est. monthly (1M tokens/day)$82.50

Seed 1.6 offers 59% better value per quality point. At 1M tokens/day, you'd spend $33.75/month with Seed 1.6 vs $82.50/month with Muse Spark 1.3 - a $48.75 monthly difference.

Latency & Speed
Seed 1.6Faster
Speed score0/100
Muse Spark 1.3
Speed score0/100

Both models have comparable response speeds. For most applications, the latency difference is negligible.

When latency matters most: Interactive chatbots, IDE code completion, real-time translation, and user-facing applications where response time directly impacts experience. For batch processing, background summarization, or offline analysis, latency is less critical.

Example Use Cases

Code generation & review

Based on overall model capabilities and architecture for coding tasks like generating functions, debugging, and refactoring

Seed 1.6

Customer support chatbot

Suitable for user-facing chat with competitive response times. Seed 1.6 also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support

Seed 1.6

Long document analysis

Larger context window (1049K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass

Muse Spark 1.3

Batch data extraction

Lower output pricing ($2.00/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily

Seed 1.6

Creative writing & content

Higher overall composite score (81/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content

Muse Spark 1.3

Image understanding & OCR

Supports vision input - can analyze screenshots, diagrams, photos, and scanned documents directly

Seed 1.6
Which Should You Choose?
Our recommendation:
Muse Spark 1.3

Muse Spark 1.3 clearly outperforms Seed 1.6 with a significant 40.900000000000006-point lead. For most general use cases, Muse Spark 1.3 is the stronger choice. However, Seed 1.6 may still excel in niche scenarios.

by ByteDance

  • Choose for Quality - Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
  • Choose for Cost - 59% lower pricing; better value at scale
  • Choose for Reliability - Higher uptime and faster response speeds
  • Choose for Prototyping - Stronger community support and better developer experience
  • Choose for Production - Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
Muse Spark 1.3
Recommended

by meta

Consider for specialized use cases.

Capability Comparison
CapabilitySeed 1.6Muse Spark 1.3
Vision (Image Input)
Function Calling
Streaming
JSON Mode
Reasoning
Web Searchdiffers
Image Output
Monthly Cost Calculator
1,000tokens (600 in / 400 out)
100requests/day (3,000/month)

Seed 1.6

ByteDance

Best Value
$2.85
estimated monthly cost

Muse Spark 1.3

meta

$7.35
estimated monthly cost

Seed 1.6 saves you $4.50/month

That's 61% cheaper than Muse Spark 1.3 at 1,000 tokens/request and 100 requests/day.

Assumes 60% input / 40% output token ratio per request. Actual costs may vary based on your usage pattern.

Parameters & Context
ParameterSeed 1.6Muse Spark 1.3
Context Window262K1.0M
Max Output Tokens32,768943,718
Open SourceNoNo
CreatedDec 23, 2025Sep 2, 2026
Last updated: 43m ago

相关对比

Seed 1.6 vs Muse Spark 1.3 (2026) | LM Market Cap