Claude Fable 5.1 Paid vs 
Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor Paid
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor compared — price per token, context window, multimodality, openness and which to choose. Full 2026 breakdown.
Claude Fable 5.1 — full profile › · Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor — full profile ›
Prices & specs refreshed from live data · olud.ai
Open-model prices = cheapest provider via OpenRouter; official maker rates may be higher.
$50 /M outputManaged API (no infra to run)
$0.2 /M outputManaged API (no infra to run)
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor specs
| Spec | Claude Fable 5.1 | Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maker | Anthropic | Meta | – |
| Type | Proprietary | Proprietary | – |
| Context window | 1M tokens | 1M tokens | |
| Input price | $10/M | $0.1/M | |
| Output price | $50/M | $0.2/M | |
| Vision / multimodal | Yes | Yes | = Tie |
| Tool / function calling | Yes | Yes | = Tie |
| Self-hostable | No (API only) | No (API only) | – |
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary | – |
Price gap & when to choose each
Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor is ~250× cheaper than Claude Fable 5.1 on output tokens ($0.2 vs $50 per M tokens).
- You want frontier performance through a managed API
- You value reliability & ecosystem
- You don't want to manage infrastructure
- You want frontier performance through a managed API
- You need the longer 1M context window
- You want the lower output price
- You value reliability & ecosystem
- You don't want to manage infrastructure
Feature comparison
| Capability | Claude Fable 5.1 | Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor |
|---|---|---|
| Open weights (downloadable) | ✗ | ✗ |
| Self-hostable | ✗ | ✗ |
| Runs fully offline | ✗ | ✗ |
| Vision / multimodal | ✓ | ✓ |
| Tool / function calling | ✓ | ✓ |
| 1M+ context window | ✓ | ✓ |
Benchmarks: Claude Fable 5.1 vs Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor
Independent benchmark scores measured by Artificial Analysis. Higher is better (except latency).
Benchmark data by Artificial Analysis.
How Claude Fable 5.1 and Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor score
| Criterion | Claude Fable 5.1 | Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor |
|---|---|---|
| Cost-efficiency | 2.0 | 5.0 |
| Context window | 5.0 | 5.0 |
| Openness | 1.5 | 1.5 |
| Self-hosting | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Multimodality | 5.0 | 5.0 |
Scores come from live data — output price (cost), context length, open vs closed weights (openness & self-hosting) and vision/tool support (multimodality). Raw task quality isn't scored here; it depends on your benchmark — see the verdict.
What each model is
Claude Fable 5.1 Paid
Claude Fable 5.1 improves on Claude Fable 5 across the board, with the biggest gains in agentic coding, long-running agentic workflows, and knowledge work: long code refactors, front-end and visual...
Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor Paid
Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor is the cost-efficient contributor tier of Meta’s multimodal reasoning model for experimentation, learning, and early-stage agentic, multi-agent, and coding workflows. It is designed to track information...
Frequently asked questions
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor — which is cheaper?
Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor is cheaper on output ($0.2/M vs $50/M).
Which has the larger context window?
Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor offers the larger context window (1M tokens).
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor — which should I pick in 2026?
Choose Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor for the lower output price ($0.2/M vs $50/M). It also gives you the larger 1M context window.
People also compare
Explore more open-source AI
Browse the full open-source model leaderboard, thousands of tools and live benchmarks — all in one place.
Open the leaderboard →