BenchLeader
Menu
Best LLMsChoose a modelLeaderboardsModelsBenchmarksProvidersReleases15

GPT-5.4 vs Muse Wonder Full

Full profiles: GPT-5.4 (OpenAI) and Muse Wonder Full (Meta): every benchmark, price and rank.

Updated · Data from 11 sources

As of 21 Oct 2026, GPT-5.4 (xhigh) and Muse Wonder Full (max) are neck and neck on quality (64.8 vs 70.7, inside the ±9.2 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.

GPT-5.4 benchmarks xhigh OpenAI 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 65 category score; Code Migration 61.0% vs 35.0%High
ReasoningMuse Wonder Full95 vs 69 category score; CritPt 32.9% vs 23.4%High
KnowledgeMuse Wonder Full71 vs 60 category score; AA-Omniscience 30.1 vs 5.8High
Long documentsEither66 vs 67 category score; AA-LCR 82.0% vs 83.7%Either
High volume on a budgetNeither flagshipA smaller model is usually the better fit: Cheapest good LLMs, Fastest LLMs–

Key differences

  • GPT-5.4 (xhigh) and Muse Wonder Full (max) are neck and neck on quality (64.8 vs 70.7, within the ±9.2 margin).
  • GPT-5.4 (xhigh) is stronger in agents & tools, instruction following, maths, multimodal.
  • Muse Wonder Full (max) is stronger in coding, composite, knowledge, long context, reasoning.

At a glance

SpecGPT-5.4Muse Wonder Full
DeveloperOpenAIMeta
Released5 Mar 202612 Oct 2026
Context window (tokens)1,050,0001,000,000
Compared atGPT-5.4 (xhigh)Muse Wonder Full (max)
Open weightsNoNo
Price in / out / cached input per 1M$2.50 / $15.00 / $0.250–

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.

CategoryGPT-5.4 (xhigh)Muse Wonder Full (max)Leader
Reasoning69.195.0Muse Wonder Full
Coding64.672.2Muse Wonder Full
Agents & tools63.7–not comparable
Maths65.2–not comparable
Knowledge59.771.3Muse Wonder Full
Instruction following72.6–not comparable
Multimodal61.5–not comparable
Long context66.167.0level
Composite73.292.1Muse Wonder Full

Where sources disagree

Across the 13 benchmarks both have, GPT-5.4 leads 1, Muse Wonder Full leads 12. Every overall index that rates both puts Muse Wonder Full ahead.

Overall indexGPT-5.4 (xhigh)Muse Wonder Full (max)Leader
BenchLeader Index64.870.7neck and neck
AA Intelligence Index v4.3.239.055.8Muse 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.

MeasureGPT-5.4 (xhigh)Muse Wonder Full (max)
Blended price per 1M tokens$5.63–
Input / output per 1M$2.50 / $15.00– / –
Cached input per 1M$0.250–
Price per task: chat reply$0.0055–
Price per task: summarize a 30-page report$0.039–
Price per task: code edit$0.037–
Price per task: agentic coding session$0.210–
Price per task: structured extraction$0.0080–
Output speed108 tok/s–
Time to first answer122.7 s–
Time to a complete answer127.3 s–

Each model is compared at its best-ranked reasoning-effort setting. GPT-5.4 (xhigh) scores 64.8 and takes 123 s to its first answer token; GPT-5.4 (low) scores 59.8 in 2 s, GPT-5.4 scores 58.3 in 1 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

134 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.

MetricPublisherGPT-5.4 (xhigh)Muse Wonder Full (max)
BenchLeader IndexBenchLeader64.870.7
Agents & tools scoreBenchLeader63.7–
Coding scoreBenchLeader64.672.2
Composite scoreBenchLeader73.292.1
Instruction following scoreBenchLeader72.6–
Knowledge scoreBenchLeader59.771.3
Long context scoreBenchLeader66.167.0
Maths scoreBenchLeader65.2–
Multimodal scoreBenchLeader61.5–
Reasoning scoreBenchLeader69.195.0
Blended price $/MBenchLeader$5.63–
Output speedBenchLeader108 tok/s–
Time to first answerBenchLeader122.7 s–
Context windowBenchLeader1,050,000 tokens1,000,000 tokens
Reasoning
GPQA DiamondEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub93.3%–
Humanity's Last ExamScale AI / CAIS36.2%–
Arena Hard PromptsArena (LMArena)1487†–
LiveBench 1.0 ReasoningLiveBench88.1%–
GPQA Diamond (AA)Artificial Analysis92.0%–
Humanity's Last Exam (AA)Artificial Analysis43.7%53.6%
GPQA Diamond (Vals)Vals AI91.7%–
Kagi LLM BenchmarkKagi LLM Benchmark63.8%†–
ARC-AGI-1ARC Prize93.7%–
ARC-AGI-2ARC Prize74.0%–
ARC-AGI-3ARC Prize0.2%†–
CritPtArtificial Analysis23.4%32.9%
MysteryMechanismVals AI–35.1%
Chess PuzzlesEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub48.0%–
Mystery Game PuzzlesEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub37.0%–
CL-benchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub27.9%–
CL-bench LifeEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub21.7%–
LMCAEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub52.0%–
DTBenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub94.4%–
ForecastBenchForecastBench63.1%†–
Coding
SWE-bench Verified (Epoch)Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub76.9%†–
SciCodeSciCode56.6%–
WeirdMLWeirdML77.7%–
GSO-BenchGSO-Bench31.4%–
Arena CodingArena (LMArena)1511†–
Show all 134 benchmarks
MetricPublisherGPT-5.4 (xhigh)Muse Wonder Full (max)
Coding
Arena WebDevArena (LMArena)1401†1726
LiveBench 1.0 CodingLiveBench77.5%–
SciCode (AA)Artificial Analysis–62.6%
LiveCodeBenchVals AI84.1%–
IOIVals AI–79.8%
SWE-bench (Vals)Vals AI78.2%–
SWE-Bench ProScale AI SEAL59.1%–
Code MigrationVals AI35.0%61.0%
ProgramBenchVals AI0.0%0.5%
Vibe Code Bench 1-100Vals AI–34.0%
Vibe Code Bench v1.1Vals AI67.4%86.0%
SWE-Bench Pro (private)Scale AI SEAL59.1%–
SWE Atlas: Codebase QnAScale AI SEAL40.8%–
SWE Atlas: RefactoringScale AI SEAL44.3%–
SWE Atlas: Test WritingScale AI SEAL44.4%–
MirrorCodeEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub15.6%†–
DeepSWE v1.1Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub51.8%–
ALE-BenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub1607†–
AlgoTuneAlgoTune1.9†–
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA)Artificial Analysis–57.1%
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis78.3%–
FrontierCode 1.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis–44.9%
Agents & tools
Terminal-BenchTerminal-Bench81.8%†–
APEX-AgentsMercor52.4%†–
Arena AgentArena (LMArena)1.4†–
LiveBench Agentic CodingLiveBench53.8%–
Terminal-Bench HardArtificial Analysis57.6%–
τ²-Bench Telecom (AA)Artificial Analysis87.1%–
MCP AtlasScale AI SEAL70.6%–
HiL-BenchScale AI SEAL9.7%†–
τ³-bench Bankingτ²-bench39.4%–
GDPval-AA v2.1Artificial Analysis37.3%67.8%
τ³-Banking (AA)Artificial Analysis39.6%–
APEX-Agents (AA)Artificial Analysis33.3%–
CyberBenchVals AI–73.6%
Finance Agent v2Vals AI–59.1%
Harvey's Legal Agent BenchmarkVals AI–23.3%
Legal Research BenchVals AI–53.4%
SkillsBenchVals AI51.7%–
SREBenchVals AI–11.8%
Tax Agent BenchVals AI–43.0%
Terminal-Bench 2.0 (Vals)Vals AI58.4%†–
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals)Vals AI–58.1%
Terminal-Bench ScienceVals AI–37.1%
DeepResearch BenchDeepResearch Bench35.1%†–
PostTrainBenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub19.0%†–
METR Time HorizonsMETR74.3%–
GBAEvalEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub45.1%†–
Vending-Bench 2Andon Labs6144.2†–
AutomationBenchArtificial Analysis–71.3%
GDP.pdf (AA)Artificial Analysis–32.6%
Harvey LAB-AA v1.1Harvey–13.1%
AA-Briefcase v1.1Artificial Analysis–1729
DeepSearchQAGoogle63.7%†–
Maths
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub78.6%–
FrontierMath Tier 4Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub49.0%–
OTIS Mock AIMEEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub95.3%–
ProofBenchVals AI56.0%–
LiveBench MathematicsLiveBench94.2%–
AIME (Vals)Vals AI96.7%–
AIME 2026MathArena99.2%–
HMMT February 2026MathArena97.7%–
USAMO 2026MathArena95.2%–
MathArena ApexMathArena54.2%–
Arena MathsArena (LMArena)1460†–
Knowledge
SimpleQA VerifiedEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub45.1%–
LiveBench 1.0 Data AnalysisLiveBench79.3%–
AA-OmniscienceArtificial Analysis5.830.1
MMLU-ProVals AI87.5%–
LegalBenchVals AI86.0%87.4%
CorpFinVals AI65.3%–
TaxEvalVals AI74.0%–
MedQAVals AI96.1%–
PRBench FinanceScale AI SEAL45.6%†–
PRBench LegalScale AI SEAL44.4%†–
MultiNRCScale AI SEAL58.3%†–
BioMysteryBenchVals AI–73.3%
CaseLaw v2Vals AI63.8%–
Excel Modeling BenchmarkVals AI–71.9%
MedCodeVals AI41.3%49.9%
MedScribeVals AI77.5%89.3%
Public Benefits BenchVals AI–73.8%
EBR-benchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub25.4%–
AA-Omniscience: accuracyArtificial Analysis50.9%43.2%
AA-Omniscience: non-hallucinationArtificial Analysis8.3%77.0%
Instruction following
LiveBench LanguageLiveBench82.6%–
LiveBench Instruction FollowingLiveBench70.2%–
IFBenchArtificial Analysis74.0%–
Arena Instruction FollowingArena (LMArena)1460†–
Human preference
Arena TextArena (LMArena)1465†–
EQ-Bench 4EQ-Bench1272†–
Arena Creative WritingArena (LMArena)1434†–
Arena Multi-turnArena (LMArena)1480†–
Arena Longer QueriesArena (LMArena)1477†–
Multimodal
Arena VisionArena (LMArena)1292†–
MMMU-ProArtificial Analysis78.4%–
VISTAScale AI SEAL50.9%†–
MMMU-Pro (Vals)Vals AI87.5%–
MortgageTaxVals AI68.3%–
SAGEVals AI43.3%–
VTBScale AI SEAL29.2%†–
Blueprint-Bench 2Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub27.1%†–
Long context
AA-LCRArtificial Analysis82.0%83.7%
Arena DocumentArena (LMArena)1470†–
Composite
Epoch Capabilities IndexEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub157.3†–
LiveBench 1.0LiveBench78.0%–
AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2Artificial Analysis39.055.8
Vals IndexVals AI–66.8
Safety & honesty
MASKScale AI SEAL89.7%†–

Data as of 2026-10-21. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.

What changed

  • Muse Wonder Full (max): 1 new result (FrontierCode 1.1 (AA)).
  • Muse Wonder Full (max): BenchLeader Index 68.6 → 70.7.
  • Muse Wonder Full (max): 1 new result (Arena WebDev); 2 score revisions.
  • GPT-5.4 (xhigh): 2 new results (USAMO 2026, τ³-bench Banking).
  • Muse Wonder Full (max): 21 new results (IOI, LegalBench, Vals Index…).
  • GPT-5.4 (xhigh): 1 score revision.
  • Muse Wonder Full (max): 1 new result (Harvey LAB-AA v1.1).
  • GPT-5.4 (xhigh): 1 new result (SWE Atlas: Codebase QnA).
  • Muse Wonder Full (max): first results.
  • GPT-5.4 (xhigh): 1 score revision.

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

GPT-5.4 vs Muse Wonder Full: questions

Is GPT-5.4 better than Muse Wonder Full?
GPT-5.4 (xhigh) and Muse Wonder Full (max) are neck and neck on quality (64.8 vs 70.7, within the ±9.2 margin). The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; the two are within the margin of error as of 2026-10-21, so check the category scores for your use.
Is GPT-5.4 better than Muse Wonder Full for coding?
Muse Wonder Full scores higher in coding (72 vs 65 on the category index, where 50 is average).
Which is better for long documents?
They are level on long-context benchmarks (66 vs 67). Both take about 1.1M tokens: GPT-5.4 1,050,000, Muse Wonder Full 1,000,000.
Do independent benchmarks agree on GPT-5.4 vs Muse Wonder Full?
Across the 13 benchmarks both have, GPT-5.4 leads 1, Muse Wonder Full leads 12. 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.