Gemini 4 Hydrogen vs Muse Wonder
Full profiles: Gemini 4 Hydrogen (Google) and Muse Wonder (Meta): every benchmark, price and rank.
Updated · Data from 12 sources
As of 13 Nov 2026, Gemini 4 Hydrogen and Muse Wonder are neck and neck on quality (63.4 vs 63.1 on the BenchLeader Index, inside the ±6.2 margin), and Gemini 4 Hydrogen is 2.7× cheaper at $3.00 vs $8.00 per 1M tokens blended. Muse Wonder leads in every category we measure both in. Gemini 4 Hydrogen streams ~2× faster.
Key facts (as of 13 Nov 2026)
- Gemini 4 Hydrogen scores 63.4 on the BenchLeader Index and Muse Wonder scores 63.1 (BenchLeader, 13 Nov 2026).
- Gemini 4 Hydrogen costs $3.00 per 1M tokens blended (list price, 13 Nov 2026).
- Muse Wonder costs $8.00 per 1M tokens blended (list price, 13 Nov 2026).
- Gemini 4 Hydrogen streams ~2× faster than Muse Wonder (Artificial Analysis, 7-day median, 13 Nov 2026).
Gemini 4 Hydrogen benchmarks 
Muse Wonder benchmarks Which to pick for…
The pick's numbers come first. Category scores on the BenchLeader scale (50 is the average model, 15 points one standard deviation). High confidence means a lead of half a standard deviation or more; under one point is called either.
| Use case | Pick | Why | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agents & tool use | Muse Wonder | 76 vs 62 category score | High |
| Maths | Muse Wonder | 70 vs 68 category score | Medium |
| Knowledge | Muse Wonder | 77 vs 69 category score | High |
| Chat quality (human preference) | Muse Wonder | 70 vs 68 on Arena votes | Medium |
| Lowest cost | Gemini 4 Hydrogen | $3.00 vs $8.00 per 1M blended; agentic coding session $0.120 vs $0.320 | – |
| Fastest first answer | Muse Wonder | 3.4 s (Muse Wonder) vs 16.4 s (Gemini 4 Hydrogen (high)) to the first answer token | – |
| High volume on a budget | Neither flagship | A smaller model is usually the better fit: Cheapest good LLMs, Fastest LLMs | – |
Key differences
- Gemini 4 Hydrogen (high) and Muse Wonder are neck and neck on quality (63.4 vs 63.1, within the ±6.2 margin).
- Muse Wonder is stronger in agents & tools, human preference, knowledge, maths.
- Gemini 4 Hydrogen (high) is 2.7× cheaper ($3.00 vs $8.00 per 1M blended).
- Gemini 4 Hydrogen (high) streams 2.6× faster (180 vs 70 tokens per second).
At a glance
| Spec | Gemini 4 Hydrogen | Muse Wonder |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Meta | |
| Released | 12 Nov 2026 | 12 Oct 2026 |
| Context window (tokens) | 1,048,576 | 1,048,576 |
| Compared at | Gemini 4 Hydrogen (high) | Muse Wonder |
| Open weights | No | No |
| Price in / out / cached input per 1M | $1.50 / $7.50 / $0.075 | $4.00 / $20.00 / $0.200 |
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 4 Hydrogen (high) | Muse Wonder | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning | 69.6 | – | not comparable |
| Coding | 68.8 | – | not comparable |
| Agents & tools | 61.9 | 75.6 | Muse Wonder |
| Maths | 67.8 | 70.1 | Muse Wonder |
| Knowledge | 68.5 | 77.1 | Muse Wonder |
| Human preference | 68.2 | 69.6 | Muse Wonder |
| Composite | – | 56.0 | not comparable |
On one chart
Each domain on the index's own scale, where 50 is an average model. Click a domain to see the benchmarks behind it. Pick up to 5 models from the list.
Not drawn, measured for fewer than two of these models: Reasoning, Coding, Instruction following, Long context, Multimodal.
Where sources disagree
Across the 0 benchmarks both have, Gemini 4 Hydrogen leads 0, Muse Wonder leads 0. Independent sources split: Gemini 4 Hydrogen leads on AA Intelligence Index v5.0 and Vals Index; Muse Wonder leads on Arena Text.
| Overall index | Gemini 4 Hydrogen (high) | Muse Wonder | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 63.4 | 63.1 | neck and neck |
| AA Intelligence Index v5.0 | 50.8 | 40.5† | Gemini 4 Hydrogen |
| Vals Index | 68.5† | 64.9 | Gemini 4 Hydrogen |
| Arena Text | 1490 | 1511† | Muse Wonder |
Each publisher runs its own tasks, harnesses and effort settings, so their overall verdicts can differ; BenchLeader reconciles them on one scale. † measured at another effort setting of the same model (the publisher did not test the one compared here).
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. Cost, tokens and time per benchmark task are measured: Artificial Analysis’ averages over its whole Intelligence Index run.
| Measure | Gemini 4 Hydrogen (high) | Muse Wonder |
|---|---|---|
| Blended price per 1M tokens | $3.00 | $8.00 |
| Input / output per 1M | $1.50 / $7.50 | $4.00 / $20.00 |
| Cached input per 1M | $0.075 | $0.200 |
| Price per task: chat reply | $0.0029 | $0.0076 |
| Price per task: summarize a 30-page report | $0.022 | $0.060 |
| Price per task: code edit | $0.020 | $0.054 |
| Price per task: agentic coding session | $0.120 | $0.320 |
| Price per task: structured extraction | $0.0045 | $0.012 |
| Agentic coding session, input mostly cached | $0.056 | $0.149 |
| Cost per benchmark task (AA Index) | $1.87 | – |
| Output tokens per task (AA Index) | 85k | – |
| Of which reasoning | 48k | – |
| Time per task (AA Index) | 8 min | – |
| Output speed | 180 tok/s | 70 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 16.4 s | 3.4 s |
| Time to a complete answer | 63.3 s | – |
Each model is compared at its best-ranked reasoning-effort setting. Gemini 4 Hydrogen (high) scores 63.4 and takes 16 s to its first answer token. Muse Wonder scores 63.1 and takes 3 s to its first answer token; Muse Wonder (max) scores 61.5 in 24 s, Muse Wonder (high) scores 56.2 in 13 s. Higher effort means more thinking before the answer: better scores, longer waits and more tokens billed. How reasoning effort changes scores and cost.
Every benchmark
103 benchmarks, grouped by category; each name links to the board and its leaders. † measured at another effort setting of the same model, shown for reference and not counted as a win.
| Metric | Publisher | Gemini 4 Hydrogen (high) | Muse Wonder |
|---|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | BenchLeader | 63.4 | 63.1 |
| Agents & tools score | BenchLeader | 61.9 | 75.6 |
| Coding score | BenchLeader | 68.8 | – |
| Human preference score | BenchLeader | 68.2 | 69.6 |
| Knowledge score | BenchLeader | 68.5 | 77.1 |
| Maths score | BenchLeader | 67.8 | 70.1 |
| Reasoning score | BenchLeader | 69.6 | – |
| Composite score | BenchLeader | – | 56.0 |
| Blended price $/M | BenchLeader | $3.00 | $8.00 |
| Output speed | BenchLeader | 180 tok/s | 70 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | BenchLeader | 16.4 s | 3.4 s |
| Context window | BenchLeader | 1,048,576 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens |
| Reasoning | |||
| Arena Hard Prompts | Arena (LMArena) | 1514 | 1531† |
| LiveBench 2.0 Reasoning | LiveBench | 88.6%† | 90.6% |
| LiveBench 1.0 Reasoning | LiveBench | – | 90.6%† |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 50.1%† |
| HLE-Diamond (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 54.9% | 39.0%† |
| CritPt | Artificial Analysis | – | 28.3%† |
| CritPt v2 hard subset (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 61.5% | 50.5%† |
| MysteryMechanism | Vals AI | – | 27.5%† |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 51.0%† |
| LMCA | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 56.8% |
| DTBench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 95.2% |
| Coding | |||
| SciCode | SciCode | – | 60.3%† |
| Arena Coding | Arena (LMArena) | 1518 | 1542† |
| Arena WebDev | Arena (LMArena) | 1704 | 1647† |
| LiveBench 2.0 Coding | LiveBench | 78.5%† | 74.9% |
| LiveBench 1.0 Coding | LiveBench | – | 80.7%† |
| IOI | Vals AI | – | 66.9%† |
| Code Migration | Vals AI | – | 62.5%† |
| Code Migration v1.1 | Vals AI | – | 72.4%† |
| SWE-bench Multimodal | Vals AI | – | 45.6%† |
| Vibe Code Bench 1-100 | Vals AI | – | 26.6%† |
| Vibe Code Bench v1.1 | Vals AI | 87.8%† | 83.1%† |
| MirrorCode | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 45.6%† |
| CursorBench | Cursor | – | 50.4%† |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 54.0% | 52.0%† |
Show all 103 benchmarks
| Metric | Publisher | Gemini 4 Hydrogen (high) | Muse Wonder |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | |||
| Startrise Frontend | Startrise | – | 75.3% |
| GameBench 2 Overall | DuelLab GameBench 2 | – | 64.6 |
| GameBench 2 by reasoning setting | DuelLab GameBench 2 | – | 54.9† |
| Design Arena Website | Design Arena | 1316† | 1378† |
| FrontierCode 1.1 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 46.5%† |
| FrontierCode 2.0 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 36.3% | 27.9%† |
| Agents & tools | |||
| Terminal-Bench | Terminal-Bench | 56.4% | – |
| APEX-Agents | Mercor | – | 66.1%† |
| Arena Agent | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1.8† |
| LiveBench Long Agentic | LiveBench | 61.8%† | 46.2% |
| LiveBench Browser | LiveBench | 77.1%† | 60.0% |
| LiveBench Agentic Coding | LiveBench | – | 62.7%† |
| HiL-Bench | Scale AI SEAL | – | 79.7% |
| GDPval-AA v2.1, normalised score | Artificial Analysis | – | 63.5%† |
| GDPval-AA v2.1 | Artificial Analysis | – | 1770† |
| CUA-bench | Vals AI | – | 7.2%† |
| CyberBench | Vals AI | – | 80.4%† |
| Finance Agent v2 | Vals AI | – | 56.6%† |
| Finance Agent v2.1 | Vals AI | 65.1%† | 65.5%† |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1.1 | Vals AI | 11.3%† | 23.8%† |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1 | Vals AI | – | 17.1%† |
| Legal Research Bench | Vals AI | 53.9%† | 50.5%† |
| Tax Agent Bench | Vals AI | 52.3%† | 36.3%† |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals) | Vals AI | 54.0%† | 49.5%† |
| Terminal-Bench Science | Vals AI | – | 22.9%† |
| PostTrainBench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 24.2%† |
| Vending-Bench 2 | Andon Labs | – | 9432.2 |
| AutomationBench | Artificial Analysis | 74.4% | 68.1%† |
| GDP.pdf (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 30.0% | 30.6%† |
| Harvey LAB-AA v1.1 | Harvey | – | 10.0%† |
| AA-Briefcase v1.1 | Artificial Analysis | 1497 | 1659† |
| GDPx | GDPx by SemiAnalysis | – | 6.8%† |
| Design Arena Agentic | Design Arena | – | 1159† |
| Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 41.4% | 25.7%† |
| Maths | |||
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 82.1%† |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 70.7%† |
| OTIS Mock AIME | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 99.4%† |
| ProofBench | Vals AI | – | 84.0% |
| LiveBench Mathematics | LiveBench | – | 96.5%† |
| Arena Maths | Arena (LMArena) | 1495 | 1490† |
| Knowledge | |||
| LiveBench 2.0 Data Analysis | LiveBench | 83.2%† | 81.6% |
| LiveBench Research | LiveBench | 86.8%† | 93.0% |
| LiveBench 1.0 Data Analysis | LiveBench | – | 81.6%† |
| AA-Omniscience v1.1 | Artificial Analysis | 43.7 | 25.1† |
| PRBench Finance | Scale AI SEAL | – | 58.7% |
| PRBench Legal | Scale AI SEAL | – | 58.4% |
| BioMysteryBench | Vals AI | – | 67.0%† |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark | Vals AI | – | 67.1%† |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark v1.1 | Vals AI | 75.8%† | 72.5%† |
| Public Benefits Bench v1.1 | Vals AI | – | 70.2%† |
| EBR-bench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 31.4%† |
| GDP.pdf | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 30.8%† |
| AA-Omniscience v1.1: accuracy | Artificial Analysis | 48.2% | 38.0%† |
| AA-Omniscience v1.1: non-hallucination | Artificial Analysis | 91.3% | 79.1%† |
| Instruction following | |||
| LiveBench Language | LiveBench | – | 82.9%† |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | LiveBench | – | 73.0%† |
| Arena Instruction Following | Arena (LMArena) | 1503 | 1498† |
| Human preference | |||
| Arena Text | Arena (LMArena) | 1490 | 1511† |
| EQ-Bench 4 | EQ-Bench | – | 1325 |
| Arena Creative Writing | Arena (LMArena) | 1492 | 1491† |
| Arena Multi-turn | Arena (LMArena) | 1476 | 1525† |
| Arena Longer Queries | Arena (LMArena) | 1514 | 1507† |
| Multimodal | |||
| LiveBench Design | LiveBench | 77.3%† | 70.9% |
| MMMU-Pro | Artificial Analysis | – | 83.8%† |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 31.7% |
| Code2Video-AA | Artificial Analysis | – | 997† |
| Long context | |||
| AA-LCR v1.1 | Artificial Analysis | – | 80.7%† |
| MLCR | Artificial Analysis | 21.1%† | 22.2%† |
| Composite | |||
| Epoch Capabilities Index | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 161.7 |
| LiveBench 2.0 | LiveBench | 77.0%† | 70.7% |
| LiveBench 1.0 | LiveBench | – | 81.2%† |
| AA Intelligence Index v5.0 | Artificial Analysis | 50.8 | 43.6† |
| AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2 | Artificial Analysis | – | 52.4† |
| AA Progress Index v1 | Artificial Analysis | – | 335.8† |
| Vals Index | Vals AI | 68.5† | 64.9† |
| Vals Finance Index | Vals AI | 66.1%† | 61.2%† |
| Vals Science Index | Vals AI | – | 39.1%† |
| Vals Router Index | Vals AI | – | 64.9% |
Data as of 2026-11-13. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
DuelLab GameBench 2, release gb2-20261110-2acac640a228 (https://benchmarks.duellab.org/releases/gb2-20261110-2acac640a228/), CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Scores mapped to BenchLeader model names; not endorsed by DuelLab.
What changed
- Gemini 4 Hydrogen (high): 10 new results (Arena Text, Arena Hard Prompts, Arena Coding…).
- Muse Wonder: BenchLeader Index 63.5 → 63.0.
- Muse Wonder: 1 new result (Blueprint-Bench 2).
- Muse Wonder: BenchLeader Index 64.3 → 63.5.
- Muse Wonder: 5 score revisions.
- Muse Wonder: 1 score revision.
- Muse Wonder: 1 new result (Startrise Frontend).
- Muse Wonder: 3 score revisions.
- Muse Wonder: 1 new result (EQ-Bench 4).
- Muse Wonder: 1 new result (Vals Router Index).
Related comparisons
- Gemini 4 Hydrogen vs Claude Fable 5.2
- Gemini 4 Hydrogen vs Gemini 4 Carbon
- Gemini 4 Hydrogen vs Claude Opus 5.5
- Muse Wonder vs Claude Fable 5.2
- Muse Wonder vs Gemini 4 Carbon
- Muse Wonder vs Claude Opus 5.5
- Muse Wonder vs GPT-6 Astra
- Gemini 4 Hydrogen vs Muse Spark 1.3
Rankings: Best LLM overall · Best LLM for agents · Best cheap LLMs
Gemini 4 Hydrogen vs Muse Wonder: questions
- Is Gemini 4 Hydrogen better than Muse Wonder?
- Gemini 4 Hydrogen (high) and Muse Wonder are neck and neck on quality (63.4 vs 63.1, within the ±6.2 margin). The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; the two are within the margin of error as of 13 Nov 2026, so check the category scores for your use.
- Gemini 4 Hydrogen vs Muse Wonder: which is cheaper, and will that change?
- Gemini 4 Hydrogen is cheaper today: $3.00 against $8.00 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token. No price change has been announced for either.
- Which is faster, Gemini 4 Hydrogen or Muse Wonder?
- Gemini 4 Hydrogen streams ~2× faster (180 vs 70 output tokens per second, Artificial Analysis 7-day median).
- Is Gemini 4 Hydrogen or Muse Wonder better for agents and tool use?
- Muse Wonder scores higher in agentic tasks (76 vs 62 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Which is better for long documents?
- Both accept 1,048,576 tokens of context.
More questions (2)
- Which has lower latency?
- Muse Wonder answers first: 3.4 s against 16.4 s to the first answer token, as Artificial Analysis measures it. Reasoning effort drives most of this: a higher setting thinks longer before it answers.
- When was Gemini 4 Hydrogen released?
- Gemini 4 Hydrogen was released on 12 Nov 2026.