GPT-5.3-Codex vs Muse Wonder
As of 13 Oct 2026, Muse Wonder (max) leads on quality (66.3 vs 63.8 on the BenchLeader Index), but GPT-5.3-Codex (xhigh) costs 1.7× less, so it is the better buy unless you need the extra quality.
GPT-5.3-Codex 
Muse Wonder Key differences
- Muse Wonder (max) leads on quality: 66.3 vs 63.8.
- GPT-5.3-Codex (xhigh) is stronger in agents & tools, coding, instruction following, long context, multimodal.
- Muse Wonder (max) is stronger in composite, knowledge, reasoning.
- GPT-5.3-Codex (xhigh) is 1.7× cheaper ($4.81 vs $8.00 per 1M blended).
- GPT-5.3-Codex (xhigh) streams 1.3× faster (113 vs 85 tokens per second).
Choose GPT-5.3-Codex (xhigh) if
- long context is the priority (67 vs 66 on the category score)
- cost matters: $4.81 against $8.00 per million tokens blended
- you need fast output: 113 against 85 tokens per second
Choose Muse Wonder (max) if
- reasoning is the priority (88 vs 69 on the category score)
- knowledge is the priority (73 vs 66 on the category score)
- you need a longer context: 1.0M against 400k tokens
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 | GPT-5.3-Codex (xhigh) | Muse Wonder (max) | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning | 68.9 | 87.8 | Muse Wonder |
| Coding | 60.7 | – | not comparable |
| Agents & tools | 79.8 | – | not comparable |
| Knowledge | 66.4 | 73.0 | Muse Wonder |
| Instruction following | 73.4 | – | not comparable |
| Multimodal | 61.6 | – | not comparable |
| Long context | 66.9 | 65.5 | GPT-5.3-Codex |
| Composite | 66.0 | 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 | GPT-5.3-Codex (xhigh) | Muse Wonder (max) |
|---|---|---|
| Blended price per 1M tokens | $4.81 | $8.00 |
| Input / output per 1M | $1.75 / $14.00 | $4.00 / $20.00 |
| Price per task: chat reply | $0.0049 | $0.0076 |
| Price per task: summarise a 30-page report | $0.029 | $0.060 |
| Price per task: code edit | $0.032 | $0.054 |
| Price per task: agentic coding session | $0.161 | $0.320 |
| Price per task: structured extraction | $0.0063 | $0.012 |
| Cost to run a full benchmark suite | – | $4.52 |
| Output speed | 113 tok/s | 85 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 70.4 s | 60.8 s |
| Time to a complete answer | 74.8 s | 66.7 s |
Every benchmark
| Metric | GPT-5.3-Codex (xhigh) | Muse Wonder (max) |
|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 63.8 | 66.3 |
| Agents & tools score | 79.8 | – |
| Coding score | 60.7 | – |
| Composite score | 66.0 | 78.2 |
| Instruction following score | 73.4 | – |
| Knowledge score | 66.4 | 73.0 |
| Long context score | 66.9 | 65.5 |
| Multimodal score | 61.6 | – |
| Reasoning score | 68.9 | 87.8 |
| Blended price $/M | $4.81 | $8.00 |
| Output speed | 113 tok/s | 85 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 70.4 s | 60.8 s |
| Context window | 400k | 1.0M |
| WeirdML | 77.9% | – |
| 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 | 32.5 | 52.4 |
| IFBench | 75.4% | – |
| AA-LCR | 83.3% | 80.7% |
| MMMU-Pro | 78.5% | – |
| AA-Omniscience | 10.9 | 25.5 |
| Terminal-Bench Hard | 53.0% | – |
| GPQA Diamond (AA) | 91.5% | – |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | 42.5% | 50.1% |
| SciCode (AA) | – | 60.3% |
| τ²-Bench Telecom (AA) | 86.0% | – |
| LiveCodeBench | 87.3% | – |
| IOI | 53.8% | – |
| SWE-bench (Vals) | 78.0% | – |
| CritPt | 16.9% | 28.3% |
| GDPval-AA v2.1 | – | 63.5% |
| Vibe Code Bench v1.1 | 61.8% | – |
| ALE-Bench | 1655.2 | – |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA) | – | 52.0% |
| AutomationBench | – | 68.1% |
| GDP.pdf | – | 30.6% |
| AA-Omniscience: accuracy | 52.9% | 41.1% |
| AA-Omniscience: non-hallucination | 10.8% | 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.
GPT-5.3-Codex vs Muse Wonder: questions
- Is GPT-5.3-Codex better than Muse Wonder?
- Muse Wonder (max) leads on quality: 66.3 vs 63.8. 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, GPT-5.3-Codex or Muse Wonder?
- GPT-5.3-Codex is cheaper: $4.81 against $8.00 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token.
- Which is faster, GPT-5.3-Codex or Muse Wonder?
- GPT-5.3-Codex streams faster: 113 against 85 output tokens per second.
- Which has the larger context window?
- Muse Wonder accepts more context: 1.0M against 400k tokens.