MModelspectraIndependent AI Model Intelligence
Head-to-head · Updated 2026-09-08
中文
Model Comparison · Head to Head

Muse Spark 1.3 vs Doubao Seed 2.1 Turbo

Muse Spark 1.3 wins on Overall, Coding, Multimodal. Every numeric field is compared below, with a worked monthly-cost example and a pick rule for each use case.

VendorMeta / ByteDance
Data fields15+ dimensions
Updated2026-09-08
Read~9 min
01

Verdict at a glance

Bottom line: Choose Muse Spark 1.3 when coding depth, lower refusal matter most; choose Doubao Seed 2.1 Turbo when lower cost, lower latency is the priority.

Choose Muse Spark 1.3 if you…

  • #1 DeepSWE long-horizon coding
  • Open weights, self-hostable
  • Extremely low cost
  • Fast
  • Best for: Coding, Open-source deployment, Budget

Choose Doubao Seed 2.1 Turbo if you…

  • Low price
  • Video support
  • Fast
  • Built for volume
  • Best for: Volume production, Video, Low cost
02

Head-to-head aggregate scores

Scores are 0–100, aggregated from public benchmark information and independently weighted across three leaderboards. Rank is out of 26 tracked models.

Muse Spark 1.3 Higher overall
Meta · #22 overall
Overall64
Coding88
Multimodal76
VS
Doubao Seed 2.1 Turbo
ByteDance · #24 overall
Overall63
Coding61
Multimodal73

Aggregated from public sources and independently weighted; methodology on the Terms page. Scores within 3 points are treated as statistically tied.

03

Specs & pricing — every field side by side

List API prices in USD per 1M tokens. The highlighted cell is the stronger value/capability on that row.

DimensionMuse Spark 1.3Doubao Seed 2.1 TurboVerdict
VendorMeta (US)ByteDance (CN)Different vendors
Released2026.092026.06Muse Spark 1.3 is newer
Overall (rank)64 · #2263 · #24Muse Spark 1.3 +1
Coding88 · #561 · #23Muse Spark 1.3 +27
Multimodal76 · #1773 · #21Muse Spark 1.3 +3
Context window256K256KTie
Max output64K256KMuse Spark 1.3 longer
Effective-context8590Doubao Seed 2.1 Turbo more reliable
Input $/1M$1.25$0.42Doubao Seed 2.1 Turbo cheaper
Output $/1M$4.25$2.08Doubao Seed 2.1 Turbo cheaper
Cache discountnonecustomDoubao Seed 2.1 Turbo deeper
Speed~70 tok/s~75 tok/sDoubao Seed 2.1 Turbo faster
TTFT0.4s0.4sTie
Function calling7280Doubao Seed 2.1 Turbo ahead
Refusal rate~4%~10%Muse Spark 1.3 less restrictive
English8468Muse Spark 1.3
Chinese6290Doubao Seed 2.1 Turbo
Modalitiestext, imagetext, image, videodifferent coverage
Open weightsYesNoMuse Spark 1.3 is open
Fine-tuningYesYes
Free tierOpen weights free to self-host; hosted API at $1.25/$4.25 per 1MDoubao App free
SOC2 / no-trainno / yesno / yes
Private deploymentYesYesBoth support it

Fields drawn from vendor public documentation and the Modelspectra 26-model dataset; speed varies with network, concurrency and prompt length. Verify current pricing before purchase.

04

Dimension-by-dimension analysis

Reasoning & overall intelligence

Muse Spark 1.3 leads the overall aggregate by 1 points (64 vs 63). That is a meaningful, not marginal, edge on hard, multi-step reasoning, while Doubao Seed 2.1 Turbo remains a strong generalist that is not out of its depth on routine work.

Agentic coding

This is a decisive gap: Muse Spark 1.3 scores 88 against 61. On multi-file edits, SWE-style tickets and long-horizon agent loops Muse Spark 1.3 needs fewer correction turns; Doubao Seed 2.1 Turbo is still competent for scripts and assisted completion but trails as task complexity rises.

Multimodal

Muse Spark 1.3 leads multimodal 76 vs 73. A concrete modality difference: Doubao Seed 2.1 Turbo additionally handles video.

Speed & latency

Doubao Seed 2.1 Turbo is faster in interactive use: ~75 tok/s with 0.4s TTFT versus ~70 tok/s with 0.4s TTFT (about 1.1× the throughput). For conversational UIs where perceived responsiveness drives retention, that edge is a real product factor even when raw reasoning is lower.

Context: window vs usable recall

Nominal windows are 256K for Muse Spark 1.3 and 256K for Doubao Seed 2.1 Turbo. Crucially, the larger nominal window does not win on usable recall: Muse Spark 1.3 advertises 256K but Doubao Seed 2.1 Turbo scores higher on effective-context (90 vs 85), i.e. it actually retains more of what it was given.

Price & total cost

Doubao Seed 2.1 Turbo is the cheaper API at $0.42/$2.08 versus Muse Spark 1.3 at $1.25/$4.25 per 1M input/output tokens — list input is about 3.0× lower.

Chinese vs English

English: Muse Spark 1.3 84 vs Doubao Seed 2.1 Turbo 68. Chinese: 62 vs 90. For Chinese-language production, Doubao Seed 2.1 Turbo is the stronger pick. Note that non-Chinese models generally require overseas network access for their APIs.

Tool use & ecosystem

Function-calling score: Muse Spark 1.3 72 vs Doubao Seed 2.1 Turbo 80, so Doubao Seed 2.1 Turbo has the edge on structured tool use. Fine-tuning is available from Muse Spark 1.3 and Doubao Seed 2.1 Turbo. Factor in existing SDK/plugin familiarity — switching cost often outweighs a few-point tool-use gap.

05

Cost worked example — same workload, real token math

Assume a production workload of 100M input + 30M output tokens per month, with 90% of input tokens served from cache. Figures use public list prices.

Scenario · per monthMuse Spark 1.3Doubao Seed 2.1 TurboGap
List priceno cache applied$252100M in × $1.25  +  30M out × $4.25$104100M in × $0.42  +  30M out × $2.082.42×gap
With caching90% of inputs cache-hit$252no published cache discount$104no published cache discount2.42×gap

Illustrative model; your input/output mix and cache-hit ratio change the result. Prices are list rates before any enterprise agreement.

06

Decision tree

IF the workload is agentic or multi-file coding and a wrong first pass is expensive  →  choose Muse Spark 1.3 (coding 88 vs 61).
IF you serve real-time users and latency is a product KPI  →  choose Doubao Seed 2.1 Turbo (~75 tok/s, 0.4s TTFT).
IF you are cost-driven at scale on routine, high-volume workloads  →  choose Doubao Seed 2.1 Turbo ($$0.42/$$2.08 per 1M in/out).
IF long-document recall has to be near-perfect  →  choose Doubao Seed 2.1 Turbo (effective context 90 vs 85).
07

Frequently asked questions

Is Muse Spark 1.3 worth the higher price over Doubao Seed 2.1 Turbo?
At list the input rate is 3.0x higher, but cache discounts and output pricing narrow the effective gap. Pay the premium when Muse Spark 1.3's stronger dimensions protect revenue; for routine volume Doubao Seed 2.1 Turbo is the economical pick.
Which is better for agentic coding?
Muse Spark 1.3 is decisively stronger for coding (88 vs 61 on the aggregate). The gap shows on SWE-style multi-file tasks and long agent loops that need fewer correction turns; Doubao Seed 2.1 Turbo is fine for routine scripts.
Does Doubao Seed 2.1 Turbo's higher refusal rate matter in production?
Doubao Seed 2.1 Turbo refuses about 10% of prompts versus 4% for Muse Spark 1.3. In unattended pipelines that means more retries, fallbacks and manual review, raising effective cost and latency even when the token price is lower.
How do costs compare at 100M tokens/month with caching?
At 100M input + 30M output with 90% of inputs cache-hit, Muse Spark 1.3 is about $252/month and Doubao Seed 2.1 Turbo about $104/month after cache discounts ($252 and $104 at list).
Does the bigger context window actually matter?
Nominal windows are Muse Spark 1.3 (256K) and Doubao Seed 2.1 Turbo (256K), but usable recall follows the effective-context score (85 vs 90). Prefer the higher effective-context model for long-document work where nothing can be missed.
How do they differ for Chinese-language and data-residency use?
Doubao Seed 2.1 Turbo is the Chinese model (Chinese score 90, domestic cloud, possible private deployment) while Muse Spark 1.3 is the global model (Chinese 62, overseas API). Pick by language quality, access path and where data must reside.