Model Comparison

Muse Spark 1.1 vs Pixtral LargeWhich is better in 2026?

Comparing Muse Spark 1.1 and Pixtral Large across benchmarks, pricing, and capabilities.

Verdict: Muse Spark 1.1 vs Pixtral Large — which is better?

Muse Spark 1.1 (by Meta) and Pixtral Large (by Mistral AI) are two of the AI models people compare most. Here is how they stack up on benchmarks, price and capabilities, and which one to pick in 2026.

On price, Muse Spark 1.1 is roughly 1.5x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

Muse Spark 1.1 also accepts a larger context window (1,048,576 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.

Choose Muse Spark 1.1 if…

  • cost matters — it's about 1.5x cheaper per token
  • you process long inputs — it offers a 1,048,576 token context window
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Jul 2026

Choose Pixtral Large if…

  • you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

No common benchmarks found

Muse Spark 1.1 and Pixtral Largedon't have any common benchmark datasets to compare. They may have been evaluated on different testing suites.

Arena Performance

Human preference votes

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Muse Spark 1.1 costs less

For input processing, Muse Spark 1.1 ($1.25/1M tokens) is 1.6x cheaper than Pixtral Large ($2.00/1M tokens).

For output processing, Muse Spark 1.1 ($4.25/1M tokens) is 1.4x cheaper than Pixtral Large ($6.00/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Pixtral Large is more expensive than Muse Spark 1.1.*

* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens

Lowest available price from all providers
Sat Jul 18 2026 • llm-stats.com
Meta
Muse Spark 1.1
Input tokens$1.25
Output tokens$4.25
Best providerMeta
Mistral AI
Pixtral Large
Input tokens$2.00
Output tokens$6.00
Best providerMistral
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Muse Spark 1.1 accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Pixtral Large's 128,000 tokens. Muse Spark 1.1 can generate longer responses up to 131,072 tokens, while Pixtral Large is limited to 128,000 tokens.

Meta
Muse Spark 1.1
Input1,048,576 tokens
Output131,072 tokens
Mistral AI
Pixtral Large
Input128,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Sat Jul 18 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input Capabilities

Supported data types and modalities

Both Muse Spark 1.1 and Pixtral Large support multimodal inputs.

They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.

Muse Spark 1.1

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Pixtral Large

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Muse Spark 1.1 is licensed under a proprietary license, while Pixtral Large uses Mistral Research License (MRL) for research; Mistral Commercial License for commercial use.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

Muse Spark 1.1

Proprietary

Closed source

Pixtral Large

Mistral Research License (MRL) for research; Mistral Commercial License for commercial use

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Muse Spark 1.1 was released on 2026-07-09, while Pixtral Large was released on 2024-11-18.

Muse Spark 1.1 is 20 months newer than Pixtral Large.

Muse Spark 1.1

Jul 9, 2026

1 weeks ago

1.6yr newer
Pixtral Large

Nov 18, 2024

1.7 years ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.

Unable to compare the recency of their training data.

No cutoff dates available

Provider Availability

Muse Spark 1.1 is available from Meta Model API. Pixtral Large is available from Mistral AI.

Muse Spark 1.1

meta logo
Meta
Input Price:Input: $1.25/1MOutput Price:Output: $4.25/1M

Pixtral Large

mistral logo
Mistral
Input Price:Input: $2.00/1MOutput Price:Output: $6.00/1M
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Key Takeaways

Meta
Larger context window (1,048,576 tokens)
Less expensive input tokens
Less expensive output tokens
Mistral AI
Has open weights

Detailed Comparison

Interactive Arena

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Muse Spark 1.1 and Pixtral Large side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Muse Spark 1.1
✓ Preferred
Pixtral Large
Open in Playground
AI Model Comparison Table
Feature
Meta
Muse Spark 1.1
Mistral AI
Pixtral Large

FAQ

Common questions about Muse Spark 1.1 vs Pixtral Large.

Which is better, Muse Spark 1.1 or Pixtral Large?

Muse Spark 1.1 (Meta) and Pixtral Large (Mistral AI) each have strengths in different areas. Compare their benchmark scores, pricing, context windows, and capabilities above to determine which fits your needs.

How does Muse Spark 1.1 compare to Pixtral Large in benchmarks?

Muse Spark 1.1 scores CharXiv-R: 88.4%, MCP Atlas: 88.1%, OSWorld-Verified: 80.8%, Terminal-Bench 2.1: 80.0%, BabyVision: 76.3%. Pixtral Large scores AI2D: 93.8%, DocVQA: 93.3%, ChartQA: 88.1%, VQAv2: 80.9%, MM-MT-Bench: 74.0%.

Is Muse Spark 1.1 cheaper than Pixtral Large?

Muse Spark 1.1 is 1.6x cheaper for input tokens. Muse Spark 1.1 costs $1.25/M input and $4.25/M output via meta. Pixtral Large costs $2.00/M input and $6.00/M output via mistral.

What are the context window sizes for Muse Spark 1.1 and Pixtral Large?

Muse Spark 1.1 supports 1.0M tokens and Pixtral Large supports 128K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between Muse Spark 1.1 and Pixtral Large?

Key differences include context window (1.0M vs 128K), input pricing ($1.25 vs $2.00/M), licensing (Proprietary vs Mistral Research License (MRL) for research; Mistral Commercial License for commercial use). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Muse Spark 1.1 and Pixtral Large?

Muse Spark 1.1 is developed by Meta and Pixtral Large is developed by Mistral AI.

Related comparisons