BenchLeader
Menu
Best LLMsChoose a modelLeaderboardsModelsBenchmarksProvidersReleases12

GLM 5.3 Flash vs Muse Wonder Full

Full profiles: GLM 5.3 Flash (Zhipu AI) and Muse Wonder Full (Meta): every benchmark, price and rank.

Updated · Data from 7 sources

As of 24 Oct 2026, GLM 5.3 Flash and Muse Wonder Full (max) are neck and neck on quality (62.6 vs 70.7, inside the ±9.6 margin of error) and close on price, so pick on the category that matters to you. Muse Wonder Full leads in every category we measure both in.

GLM 5.3 Flash benchmarks Zhipu AI Muse Wonder Full benchmarks max MetaOpen in the comparison tool

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 casePickWhyConfidence
CodingMuse Wonder Full72 vs 63 category score; Arena WebDev 1726 vs 1608High
ReasoningMuse Wonder Full95 vs 66 category score; CritPt 32.9% vs 15.4%High
KnowledgeMuse Wonder Full71 vs 65 category score; AA-Omniscience 30.1 vs 7.5Medium
Long documentsMuse Wonder Full67 vs 65 category score; AA-LCR 83.7% vs 80.0%Medium
Chat quality (human preference)–Only GLM 5.3 Flash has an Arena rating (67 category score)Not comparable
High volume on a budgetNeither flagshipA smaller model is usually the better fit: Cheapest good LLMs, Fastest LLMs–

Key differences

  • GLM 5.3 Flash and Muse Wonder Full (max) are neck and neck on quality (62.6 vs 70.7, within the ±9.6 margin).
  • GLM 5.3 Flash is stronger in agents & tools, human preference, maths, multimodal.
  • Muse Wonder Full (max) is stronger in coding, composite, knowledge, long context, reasoning.

At a glance

SpecGLM 5.3 FlashMuse Wonder Full
DeveloperZhipu AIMeta
Released20 Aug 202612 Oct 2026
Context window (tokens)1,000,0001,000,000
Compared atGLM 5.3 FlashMuse Wonder Full (max)
Open weightsYesNo
Price in / out / cached input per 1M$0.150 / $0.500 / $0.030–

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.

CategoryGLM 5.3 FlashMuse Wonder Full (max)Leader
Reasoning66.494.9Muse Wonder Full
Coding62.972.3Muse Wonder Full
Agents & tools59.4–not comparable
Maths68.7–not comparable
Knowledge64.971.4Muse Wonder Full
Human preference66.7–not comparable
Multimodal63.8–not comparable
Long context65.067.0Muse Wonder Full
Composite64.991.9Muse Wonder Full

Where sources disagree

Across the 16 benchmarks both have, GLM 5.3 Flash leads 0, Muse Wonder Full leads 16. Every overall index that rates both puts Muse Wonder Full ahead.

Overall indexGLM 5.3 FlashMuse Wonder Full (max)Leader
BenchLeader Index62.670.7neck and neck
AA Intelligence Index v4.3.241.855.8Muse Wonder Full
Vals Index50.9†66.8Muse Wonder Full

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; suite cost is what Artificial Analysis paid to run its whole Intelligence Index.

MeasureGLM 5.3 FlashMuse Wonder Full (max)
Blended price per 1M tokens$0.238–
Input / output per 1M$0.150 / $0.500– / –
Cached input per 1M$0.030–
Price per task: chat reply$0.0002–
Price per task: summarize a 30-page report$0.0021–
Price per task: code edit$0.0017–
Price per task: agentic coding session$0.011–
Price per task: structured extraction$0.0004–
Cost to run a full benchmark suite$0.284–
Output speed69 tok/s–
Time to first answer32.4 s–
Time to a complete answer39.7 s–

Each model is compared at its best-ranked reasoning-effort setting. GLM 5.3 Flash scores 62.6 and takes 32 s to its first answer token; GLM 5.3 Flash (max) scores 54.2 in 32 s. Muse Wonder Full (max) scores 70.7. 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

116 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.

MetricPublisherGLM 5.3 FlashMuse Wonder Full (max)
BenchLeader IndexBenchLeader62.670.7
Agents & tools scoreBenchLeader59.4–
Coding scoreBenchLeader62.972.3
Composite scoreBenchLeader64.991.9
Human preference scoreBenchLeader66.7–
Knowledge scoreBenchLeader64.971.4
Long context scoreBenchLeader65.067.0
Maths scoreBenchLeader68.7–
Multimodal scoreBenchLeader63.8–
Reasoning scoreBenchLeader66.494.9
Blended price $/MBenchLeader$0.238–
Output speedBenchLeader69 tok/s–
Time to first answerBenchLeader32.4 s–
Context windowBenchLeader1,000,000 tokens1,000,000 tokens
Reasoning
GPQA DiamondEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub90.2%†–
Arena Hard PromptsArena (LMArena)1501–
LiveBench 2.0 ReasoningLiveBench77.6%–
LiveBench 1.0 ReasoningLiveBench77.6%–
GPQA Diamond (AA)Artificial Analysis91.2%–
Humanity's Last Exam (AA)Artificial Analysis39.9%53.6%
GPQA Diamond (Vals)Vals AI86.4%†–
ARC-AGI-1ARC Prize91.0%†–
ARC-AGI-2ARC Prize65.8%†–
CritPtArtificial Analysis15.4%32.9%
MysteryMechanismVals AI–35.1%
Chess PuzzlesEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub21.0%†–
Mystery Game PuzzlesEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub8.0%†–
BTF-3Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub14.9%–
Coding
SciCodeSciCode51.6%–
FrontierCodeCognition31.8%†–
Arena CodingArena (LMArena)1525–
Arena WebDevArena (LMArena)16081726
LiveBench 2.0 CodingLiveBench80.6%–
LiveBench 1.0 CodingLiveBench79.0%–
SciCode (AA)Artificial Analysis51.6%62.6%
LiveCodeBenchVals AI80.5%†–
IOIVals AI52.5%†79.8%
SWE-bench (Vals)Vals AI92.0%†–
Code MigrationVals AI20.5%†61.0%
Show all 116 benchmarks
MetricPublisherGLM 5.3 FlashMuse Wonder Full (max)
Coding
Code Migration v1.1Vals AI51.6%†62.8%
ProgramBenchVals AI0.0%†0.5%
SWE-bench MultimodalVals AI–47.3%
Vibe Code Bench 1-100Vals AI16.0%†34.0%
Vibe Code Bench v1.1Vals AI30.8%†86.0%
Surface Evolver BenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub52.5%†–
DeepSWE v1.1Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub63.4%†–
CursorBenchCursor36.8%†–
ALE-BenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub303.6†–
FrontierSWEEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub18.1%†–
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA)Artificial Analysis32.8%57.1%
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis84.3%–
FrontierCode 1.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis41.0%44.9%
Agents & tools
Terminal-BenchTerminal-Bench35.8%†–
APEX-AgentsMercor52.8%–
Arena AgentArena (LMArena)-1.6–
LiveBench Long AgenticLiveBench28.4%–
LiveBench BrowserLiveBench84.0%–
LiveBench Agentic CodingLiveBench56.8%–
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)Vals AI62.9%†–
GDPval-AA v2.1Artificial Analysis57.1%67.8%
τ³-Banking (AA)Artificial Analysis47.2%–
ITBench SRE (AA)Artificial Analysis51.2%–
Analyst Agent (AA)Artificial Analysis25.0%–
CyberBenchVals AI67.9%†73.6%
Finance Agent v2Vals AI57.9%†59.1%
Finance Agent v2.1Vals AI60.6%†67.6%
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1.1Vals AI10.4%†23.3%
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1Vals AI6.7%†21.7%
Legal Research BenchVals AI45.2%†53.4%
Robo-benchVals AI–10.4%
SkillsBenchVals AI40.2%†–
SREBenchVals AI0.8%†11.8%
Tax Agent BenchVals AI31.6%†43.0%
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals)Vals AI37.4%†58.1%
Terminal-Bench ScienceVals AI2.9%†37.1%
AutomationBenchArtificial Analysis60.4%71.3%
GDP.pdf (AA)Artificial Analysis15.4%32.6%
Harvey LAB-AA v1.1Harvey0.8%13.1%
EnterpriseOps-GymArtificial Analysis33.2%–
AA-Briefcase v1.1Artificial Analysis14531729
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis4.8%37.1%
CWE-Bench (AA)Artificial Analysis55.8%–
DeepSec-Bench (AA)Artificial Analysis19.9%–
CyberGym end-to-end (AA)Artificial Analysis74.0%–
Maths
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub55.8%†–
FrontierMath Tier 4Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub17.1%†–
OTIS Mock AIMEEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub93.9%†–
ProofBenchVals AI21.0%†–
LiveBench MathematicsLiveBench81.2%–
Arena MathsArena (LMArena)1504–
Knowledge
LiveBench 2.0 Data AnalysisLiveBench76.4%–
LiveBench ResearchLiveBench70.1%–
LiveBench 1.0 Data AnalysisLiveBench76.4%–
AA-OmniscienceArtificial Analysis7.530.1
MMLU-ProVals AI86.1%†–
LegalBenchVals AI83.9%†87.4%
TaxEvalVals AI75.6%†–
BioMysteryBenchVals AI–73.3%
Excel Modeling BenchmarkVals AI55.9%†71.9%
Excel Modeling Benchmark v1.1Vals AI66.3%†75.0%
MedCodeVals AI–49.9%
MedScribeVals AI88.9%†89.3%
Public Benefits Bench v1.1Vals AI–73.8%
GDP.pdfEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub14.0%†–
AA-Omniscience: accuracyArtificial Analysis27.5%43.2%
AA-Omniscience: non-hallucinationArtificial Analysis72.4%77.0%
Instruction following
LiveBench LanguageLiveBench77.3%–
LiveBench Instruction FollowingLiveBench52.8%–
Arena Instruction FollowingArena (LMArena)1473–
Human preference
Arena TextArena (LMArena)1476–
Arena Creative WritingArena (LMArena)1434–
Arena Multi-turnArena (LMArena)1476–
Arena Longer QueriesArena (LMArena)1481–
Multimodal
Arena VisionArena (LMArena)1294–
LiveBench DesignLiveBench77.2%–
MMMU-Pro (Vals)Vals AI86.0%†–
AA-3DArtificial Analysis935–
Long context
AA-LCRArtificial Analysis80.0%83.7%
MLCRArtificial Analysis11.7%–
Composite
Epoch Capabilities IndexEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub153.1–
LiveBench 2.0LiveBench70.6%–
LiveBench 1.0LiveBench71.6%–
AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2Artificial Analysis41.855.8
Vals IndexVals AI50.9†66.8
Vals Finance IndexVals AI55.8%†64.5%
Vals RSI IndexVals AI–24.4%
Vals Science IndexVals AI–48.5%
Vals Router IndexVals AI50.9%66.8%†
AA Cyber IndexArtificial Analysis49.9–
Metadata
AA Openness IndexArtificial Analysis44.4–

Data as of 2026-10-24. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.

What changed

  • GLM 5.3 Flash: GLM 5.3 Flash cached input price moved from $0.034/M to $0.030/M (13% down).
  • Muse Wonder Full (max): 1 new result (Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (AA)).
  • GLM 5.3 Flash: 1 new result (Vals Router Index).
  • Muse Wonder Full (max): 9 new results (Code Migration v1.1, Excel Modeling Benchmark v1.1, Finance Agent v2.1…).
  • GLM 5.3 Flash: 1 score revision.
  • Muse Wonder Full (max): 1 new result (FrontierCode 1.1 (AA)).
  • Muse Wonder Full (max): BenchLeader Index 68.6 → 70.7.
  • GLM 5.3 Flash: 1 score revision; GLM 5.3 Flash cached input price moved from $0.03/M to $0.03/M (15% up).
  • Muse Wonder Full (max): 1 new result (Arena WebDev); 2 score revisions.
  • GLM 5.3 Flash: BenchLeader Index 62.4 → 62.9.

Rankings: Best LLM overall · Best LLM for coding · Best LLM for agents · Best cheap LLMs

GLM 5.3 Flash vs Muse Wonder Full: questions

Is GLM 5.3 Flash better than Muse Wonder Full?
GLM 5.3 Flash and Muse Wonder Full (max) are neck and neck on quality (62.6 vs 70.7, within the ±9.6 margin). The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; the two are within the margin of error as of 2026-10-24, so check the category scores for your use.
Is GLM 5.3 Flash better than Muse Wonder Full for coding?
Muse Wonder Full scores higher in coding (72 vs 63 on the category index, where 50 is average). On Arena WebDev, the top shared coding benchmark, it is 1608 for GLM 5.3 Flash against 1726 for Muse Wonder Full.
Which is better for long documents?
Muse Wonder Full scores higher on long-context benchmarks (67 vs 65). Both accept 1,000,000 tokens of context.
Do independent benchmarks agree on GLM 5.3 Flash vs Muse Wonder Full?
Across the 16 benchmarks both have, GLM 5.3 Flash leads 0, Muse Wonder Full leads 16. Every overall index that rates both puts Muse Wonder Full ahead.
When was Muse Wonder Full released?
Muse Wonder Full was released on 12 Oct 2026.