Muse Spark 1.2 vs Recraft V4.1 Utility Pro: which should you choose in 2026?
Muse Spark 1.2 (by Meta) and Recraft V4.1 Utility Pro (by Recraft) are compared below. Here is how they stack up on benchmarks, price, and capabilities, and which one to pick in 2026.
There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader.
Choose Muse Spark 1.2 if…
- • you need a model with explicit reasoning support
Choose Recraft V4.1 Utility Pro if…
- • you need image generation
The benchmark count includes only results measured with a matching benchmark version and protocol. Arena scores are shown separately. Missing, preliminary, and incompatible data is not treated as a controlled win. Published point-score comparisons are labeled separately when protocol details are incomplete. For text-output models, the verdict also compares token pricing and context windows.
Performance benchmarks
Every value links to its source. A dash means that no reviewed result is available for that exact model and protocol.
| Benchmark | Muse Spark 1.2 | Recraft V4.1 Utility Pro |
|---|---|---|
A 657-task benchmark of multi-step work across simulated SaaS applications in six business domains. The Artificial Analysis protocol reports a guardrail-aware score and is distinct from both the public Zapier split and the unrelated dynamic AutoBench framework. Guardrail-aware score | — | — |
A benchmark of difficult, verifiable information-seeking questions designed to measure an agent's ability to locate hard-to-find facts through web browsing. Accuracy | — | — |
A verified computer-use benchmark in which multimodal agents operate desktop applications and are graded from the resulting environment state. Mean task reward | — | — |
A long-horizon software-engineering benchmark with 113 original tasks graded by hand-written tests. Pass@1 | 55.0%±2.0 DataCurve | — |
A human-validated subset of real GitHub issues used to measure whether a coding agent can produce repository patches that resolve the associated tests. Resolved | — | — |
Version 2.1 of the benchmark for completing realistic tasks in terminal environments. Harness, resource limits, and attempt count are part of the protocol. Mean task success | — | — |
A dynamic LLM evaluation framework in which models generate questions, answer them, and participate in reciprocal peer assessment. AutoBench is distinct from Zapier's AutomationBench. Weighted peer-assessment score | — | — |
The highest-quality subset of Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A, designed to test expert-level scientific reasoning in biology, physics, and chemistry. Accuracy | 90.4% Artificial Analysis | — |
A 2,500-question expert-level benchmark spanning dozens of academic fields. Tool-assisted and no-tools results are separate protocols and must not be merged. Accuracy | 45.5% Artificial Analysis | — |
A contamination-resistant benchmark refreshed on a fixed release cadence. Scores from different LiveBench releases must never be compared as the same protocol. Mean of category averages | 78.0% LiveBench | — |
| Arena preference scores | ||
Human preference score for generated images | — | 1169 ±11Preliminary |
Benchmark sources
- Arena AI leaderboard
- DeepSWE 1.1 Leaderboard
- GPQA Diamond Benchmark Leaderboard
- Humanity's Last Exam Benchmark Leaderboard
- LiveBench 2026-06-25 Leaderboard
Reviewed evidence last updated 2026-08-09. Arena data last refreshed Aug 12, 2026.
Pricing, capabilities, and model facts
| Feature | Muse Spark 1.2 | Recraft V4.1 Utility Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Context & model facts | ||
| Developer | Meta | Recraft |
| API provider | Meta | Recraft |
| Input context | 1,048,576 tokens | 65,536 tokens |
| Maximum output | — | — |
| Released | — | — |
| Added to Writingmate | Aug 5, 2026 | May 13, 2026 |
| License | Not available | Not available |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | — |
| Capabilities | ||
| Inputs | Text, Image, Video, File, Audio | Text, Image |
| Outputs | Text | Image |
| Provider endpoint accepts tool parameters | Yes | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | No |
| Vision | Yes | Yes |
| Image Generation | No | Yes |
| Video Generation | No | No |
| API performance | ||
| p95 latency | Not measured | Not measured |
| Output throughput | Not measured | Not measured |
| Writingmate shows API performance only when both models have enough observations from the same measurement window, prompt profile, and provider. Third-party latency values are not copied into this table. | ||
Data sources
- Writingmate model catalog (pricing, limits, and availability)
Catalog data last updated Aug 5, 2026.
Why Pay for Multiple Subscriptions?
Comparing Muse Spark 1.2 from Meta with Recraft V4.1 Utility Pro from Recraft? Instead of managing separate API keys and subscriptions, get both with Writingmate.
| Plan | Price | Muse Spark 1.2 | Recraft V4.1 Utility Pro | AI Images | AI Video |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Writingmate Pro Most popular | $20/mo | Included | Included | Nano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & more | Sora 2, VEO 3.1 |
Writingmate Ultimate Power users | $60/mo | Included | Included | Nano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & more | Sora 2, VEO 3.1 |
Muse Spark 1.2 vs Recraft V4.1 Utility Pro FAQ
Which is better, Muse Spark 1.2 or Recraft V4.1 Utility Pro?
There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader.
Which model is cheaper to use through an API?
A comparable blended token price is not available for both models. Check the API pricing rows for the values that are currently published.
Which model supports more context?
Comparable context-window data is not available for both models.
Can I switch between Muse Spark 1.2 and Recraft V4.1 Utility Pro?
Yes. Use the model selector on this page to open any current Writingmate model comparison. You can also run the same prompt with both models in Writingmate.
Related comparisons
More Muse Spark 1.2 comparisons
Gemini 3.6 Flash
Gemini 3.6 Flash is a high-efficiency model from Google for coding, agentic workflows, and web and app development.
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite is a high-efficiency model from Google with upgraded agentic capabilities.
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Gemini 3.5 Flash is Google's high-efficiency multimodal model, bringing near-Pro level coding and reasoning at Flash-tier cost and speed.
MiMo-V2.5
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.5 is a native omnimodal model by Xiaomi.
Nova 2 Lite
Amazon
Nova 2 Lite is a fast, cost-effective reasoning model for everyday workloads that can process text, images, and videos to generate text.
Sakana Namazu
Sakana AI
Sakana Namazu is a Japanese-specialized reasoning model from Sakana AI, based on Kimi K2.6 with additional training for Japanese language and business contexts.
More Recraft V4.1 Utility Pro comparisons
Grok Imagine Image 2.0
xAI
Grok Imagine Image 2.0 is an image generation and editing model from xAI.
Qwen Image 3
Qwen
Qwen Image 3 is a unified image generation and editing model from Qwen.
Qwen Image 3 Pro
Qwen
Qwen Image 3 Pro is an image generation and editing model from Qwen.
MAI-Image-2.5 Pro
Microsoft
Microsoft's MAI-Image-2.5 is a high-quality image generation model available via Azure AI Foundry.
Krea 2 Large
Krea
Krea 2 Large is Krea's high-capability image generation model, more than twice the size of Krea 2 Medium.
Krea 2 Medium
Krea
Krea 2 Medium is Krea's balanced, cost-efficient image generation model and a practical starting point for a broad range of use cases.