GLM 5.3 vs Muse Wonder
As of 13 Oct 2026, Muse Wonder (max) leads on quality (66.3 vs 63.7 on the BenchLeader Index), but GLM 5.3 (max) costs 3.7× less, so it is the better buy unless you need the extra quality.
GLM 5.3 
Muse Wonder Key differences
- Muse Wonder (max) leads on quality: 66.3 vs 63.7.
- GLM 5.3 (max) is stronger in agents & tools, coding, composite, human preference, maths.
- Muse Wonder (max) is stronger in knowledge, long context, reasoning.
- GLM 5.3 (max) is 3.7× cheaper ($2.15 vs $8.00 per 1M blended).
- Muse Wonder (max) streams 1.3× faster (85 vs 66 tokens per second).
Choose GLM 5.3 (max) if
- cost matters: $2.15 against $8.00 per million tokens blended
- the wait for the first word matters: 33.8 s against 60.8 s to first answer
- you want to run it yourself: its weights are open
Choose Muse Wonder (max) if
- reasoning is the priority (88 vs 69 on the category score)
- knowledge is the priority (73 vs 59 on the category score)
- you need fast output: 85 against 66 tokens per second
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 | GLM 5.3 (max) | Muse Wonder (max) | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning | 68.8 | 87.8 | Muse Wonder |
| Coding | 62.1 | – | not comparable |
| Agents & tools | 58.0 | – | not comparable |
| Maths | 60.7 | – | not comparable |
| Knowledge | 58.7 | 73.0 | Muse Wonder |
| Human preference | 67.4 | – | not comparable |
| Long context | 65.0 | 65.5 | level |
| Composite | 79.9 | 78.2 | GLM 5.3 |
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 | GLM 5.3 (max) | Muse Wonder (max) |
|---|---|---|
| Blended price per 1M tokens | $2.15 | $8.00 |
| Input / output per 1M | $1.40 / $4.40 | $4.00 / $20.00 |
| Price per task: chat reply | $0.0019 | $0.0076 |
| Price per task: summarise a 30-page report | $0.019 | $0.060 |
| Price per task: code edit | $0.015 | $0.054 |
| Price per task: agentic coding session | $0.102 | $0.320 |
| Price per task: structured extraction | $0.0037 | $0.012 |
| Cost to run a full benchmark suite | $2.01 | $4.52 |
| Output speed | 66 tok/s | 85 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 33.8 s | 60.8 s |
| Time to a complete answer | 41.5 s | 66.7 s |
Every benchmark
| Metric | GLM 5.3 (max) | Muse Wonder (max) |
|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 63.7 | 66.3 |
| Agents & tools score | 58.0 | – |
| Coding score | 62.1 | – |
| Composite score | 79.9 | 78.2 |
| Human preference score | 67.4 | – |
| Knowledge score | 58.7 | 73.0 |
| Long context score | 65.0 | 65.5 |
| Maths score | 60.7 | – |
| Reasoning score | 68.8 | 87.8 |
| Blended price $/M | $2.15 | $8.00 |
| Output speed | 66 tok/s | 85 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 33.8 s | 60.8 s |
| Context window | 1M | 1.0M |
| GPQA Diamond | 90.9% | – |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 | 68.8% | – |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 29.3% | – |
| OTIS Mock AIME | 91.1% | – |
| SimpleQA Verified | 41.0% | – |
| Terminal-Bench | 41.8% | – |
| SciCode | 59.0% | – |
| WeirdML | 75.4% | – |
| FrontierCode | 40.1% | – |
| ProofBench | 49.0% | – |
| LMArena Text | 1478 | – |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1504 | – |
| LMArena Coding | 1520 | – |
| LMArena WebDev | 1622 | – |
| LMArena Agent | 2.1 | – |
| 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 | 44.8 | 52.4 |
| AA-LCR | 79.7% | 80.7% |
| AA-Omniscience | 14.3 | 25.5 |
| GPQA Diamond (AA) | 91.7% | – |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | 42.3% | 50.1% |
| SciCode (AA) | 59.0% | 60.3% |
| LiveCodeBench | 80.5% | – |
| MMLU-Pro | 86.8% | – |
| IOI | 68.4% | – |
| LegalBench | 84.8% | – |
| TaxEval | 72.4% | – |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals) | 71.5% | – |
| SWE-bench (Vals) | 95.4% | – |
| GPQA Diamond (Vals) | 88.1% | – |
| Vals Index | 53.5 | – |
| CritPt | 19.1% | 28.3% |
| GDPval-AA v2.1 | 57.5% | 63.5% |
| τ³-Banking (AA) | 50.3% | – |
| ITBench SRE (AA) | 46.1% | – |
| Code Migration | 44.2% | – |
| CyberBench | 72.1% | – |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark | 56.3% | – |
| Finance Agent v2 | 55.8% | – |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark | 8.3% | – |
| Legal Research Bench | 49.0% | – |
| MedCode | 42.9% | – |
| MedScribe | 88.8% | – |
| MysteryMechanism | 23.0% | – |
| ProgramBench | 1.5% | – |
| Public Benefits Bench | 68.5% | – |
| SkillsBench | 47.5% | – |
| Tax Agent Bench | 73.1% | – |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals) | 38.9% | – |
| Terminal-Bench Science | 4.3% | – |
| Vibe Code Bench 1-100 | 20.0% | – |
| Vibe Code Bench v1.1 | 78.1% | – |
| FORTRESS | 28.2% | – |
| LMArena Maths | 1492 | – |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1454 | – |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1475 | – |
| LMArena Multi-turn | 1481 | – |
| LMArena Longer Queries | 1485 | – |
| Chess Puzzles | 21.0% | – |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 33.0% | – |
| DeepSWE v1.1 | 69.0% | – |
| CursorBench | 42.6% | – |
| FrontierSWE | 30.2% | – |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA) | 41.9% | 52.0% |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (AA) | 83.9% | – |
| AutomationBench | 62.2% | 68.1% |
| GDP.pdf | 11.2% | 30.6% |
| MLCR | 48.3% | – |
| Harvey LAB-AA v1.1 | 0.3% | – |
| EnterpriseOps-Gym | 36.4% | – |
| AA-Omniscience: accuracy | 33.9% | 41.1% |
| AA-Omniscience: non-hallucination | 70.5% | 73.5% |
| AA-Briefcase v1.1 | 1509 | 1659 |
| FrontierCode 1.1 (AA) | 40.1% | – |
| Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (AA) | 9.5% | – |
| AA Cyber Index | 3637.6% | – |
| CWE-Bench (AA) | 55.8% | – |
| DeepSec-Bench (AA) | 24.3% | – |
| CyberGym end-to-end (AA) | 29.0% | – |
| AA-3D | 782 | – |
| AA Openness Index | 33.3 | – |
Data as of 2026-10-13. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
GLM 5.3 vs Muse Wonder: questions
- Is GLM 5.3 better than Muse Wonder?
- Muse Wonder (max) leads on quality: 66.3 vs 63.7. 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, GLM 5.3 or Muse Wonder?
- GLM 5.3 is cheaper: $2.15 against $8.00 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token.
- Which is faster, GLM 5.3 or Muse Wonder?
- Muse Wonder streams faster: 85 against 66 output tokens per second.
- Which has the larger context window?
- Muse Wonder accepts more context: 1.0M against 1M tokens.