Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Muse Wonder
As of 13 Oct 2026, Muse Wonder (max) leads on quality (66.3 vs 63.0 on the BenchLeader Index), but Gemini 3.5 Flash (medium) costs 2.4× less, so it is the better buy unless you need the extra quality.
Gemini 3.5 Flash 
Muse Wonder Key differences
- Muse Wonder (max) leads on quality: 66.3 vs 63.0.
- Gemini 3.5 Flash (medium) is stronger in agents & tools, coding, human preference, instruction following, maths, multimodal.
- Muse Wonder (max) is stronger in composite, knowledge, long context, reasoning.
- Gemini 3.5 Flash (medium) is 2.4× cheaper ($3.38 vs $8.00 per 1M blended).
- Gemini 3.5 Flash (medium) streams 2.3× faster (198 vs 85 tokens per second).
Choose Gemini 3.5 Flash (medium) if
- cost matters: $3.38 against $8.00 per million tokens blended
- you need fast output: 198 against 85 tokens per second
- the wait for the first word matters: 13.1 s against 60.8 s to first answer
Choose Muse Wonder (max) if
- reasoning is the priority (88 vs 62 on the category score)
- long context is the priority (66 vs 62 on the category score)
- knowledge is the priority (73 vs 71 on the category score)
Category by category
Category scores on the BenchLeader scale: 50 is the average evaluated model, 15 points is one standard deviation. A gap under one point is called level.
| Category | Gemini 3.5 Flash (medium) | Muse Wonder (max) | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning | 61.5 | 87.8 | Muse Wonder |
| Coding | 56.8 | – | not comparable |
| Agents & tools | 67.9 | – | not comparable |
| Maths | 66.8 | – | not comparable |
| Knowledge | 70.9 | 73.0 | Muse Wonder |
| Instruction following | 72.7 | – | not comparable |
| Human preference | 67.1 | – | not comparable |
| Multimodal | 66.5 | – | not comparable |
| Long context | 62.2 | 65.5 | Muse Wonder |
| Composite | 67.3 | 78.2 | Muse Wonder |
Price, speed and latency
List prices blended at three input tokens per output token. Per-task prices use the token counts on the methodology page; suite cost is what Artificial Analysis paid to run its whole Intelligence Index.
| Measure | Gemini 3.5 Flash (medium) | Muse Wonder (max) |
|---|---|---|
| Blended price per 1M tokens | $3.38 | $8.00 |
| Input / output per 1M | $1.50 / $9.00 | $4.00 / $20.00 |
| Price per task: chat reply | $0.0033 | $0.0076 |
| Price per task: summarise a 30-page report | $0.023 | $0.060 |
| Price per task: code edit | $0.022 | $0.054 |
| Price per task: agentic coding session | $0.126 | $0.320 |
| Price per task: structured extraction | $0.0048 | $0.012 |
| Cost to run a full benchmark suite | – | $4.52 |
| Output speed | 198 tok/s | 85 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 13.1 s | 60.8 s |
| Time to a complete answer | 15.7 s | 66.7 s |
Every benchmark
| Metric | Gemini 3.5 Flash (medium) | Muse Wonder (max) |
|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 63.0 | 66.3 |
| Agents & tools score | 67.9 | – |
| Coding score | 56.8 | – |
| Composite score | 67.3 | 78.2 |
| Human preference score | 67.1 | – |
| Instruction following score | 72.7 | – |
| Knowledge score | 70.9 | 73.0 |
| Long context score | 62.2 | 65.5 |
| Maths score | 66.8 | – |
| Multimodal score | 66.5 | – |
| Reasoning score | 61.5 | 87.8 |
| Blended price $/M | $3.38 | $8.00 |
| Output speed | 198 tok/s | 85 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 13.1 s | 60.8 s |
| Context window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| LMArena Text | 1476 | – |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1495 | – |
| LMArena Coding | 1506 | – |
| LMArena WebDev | 1491 | – |
| LMArena Vision | 1309 | – |
| LiveBench | – | 81.2% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | – | 90.6% |
| LiveBench Coding | – | 80.7% |
| LiveBench Agentic Coding | – | 62.7% |
| LiveBench Mathematics | – | 96.5% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | – | 81.6% |
| LiveBench Language | – | 82.9% |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | – | 73.0% |
| AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2 | 33.6 | 52.4 |
| IFBench | 74.6% | – |
| AA-LCR | 74.3% | 80.7% |
| MMMU-Pro | 83.9% | – |
| AA-Omniscience | 20.8 | 25.5 |
| Terminal-Bench Hard | 39.4% | – |
| GPQA Diamond (AA) | 92.1% | – |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | 41.3% | 50.1% |
| SciCode (AA) | – | 60.3% |
| τ²-Bench Telecom (AA) | 95.6% | – |
| CritPt | 10.9% | 28.3% |
| GDPval-AA v2.1 | – | 63.5% |
| LMArena Maths | 1482 | – |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1469 | – |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1466 | – |
| LMArena Multi-turn | 1478 | – |
| LMArena Longer Queries | 1480 | – |
| LMArena Document | 1461 | – |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 58.1% | – |
| DeepSWE v1.1 | 37.4% | – |
| GDP.pdf | 14.0% | – |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA) | – | 52.0% |
| AutomationBench | – | 68.1% |
| GDP.pdf | – | 30.6% |
| AA-Omniscience: accuracy | 51.0% | 41.1% |
| AA-Omniscience: non-hallucination | 38.2% | 73.5% |
| AA-Briefcase v1.1 | – | 1659 |
Data as of 2026-10-13. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Muse Wonder: questions
- Is Gemini 3.5 Flash better than Muse Wonder?
- Muse Wonder (max) leads on quality: 66.3 vs 63.0. The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; Muse Wonder (max) is ahead overall as of 2026-10-13, but check the category scores for your use.
- Which is cheaper, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Muse Wonder?
- Gemini 3.5 Flash is cheaper: $3.38 against $8.00 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token.
- Which is faster, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Muse Wonder?
- Gemini 3.5 Flash streams faster: 198 against 85 output tokens per second.
- Which has the larger context window?
- Both accept 1.0M tokens of context.