BenchLeader
Menu
Best LLMsChoose a modelLeaderboardsModelsBenchmarksProvidersReleases12

Grok 4.6 vs Muse Wonder Full

Full profiles: Grok 4.6 (SpaceXAI) and Muse Wonder Full (Meta): every benchmark, price and rank.

Updated · Data from 7 sources

As of 24 Oct 2026, Grok 4.6 (medium) and Muse Wonder Full (max) are neck and neck on quality (64.2 vs 70.7, inside the ±9.7 margin of error) and close on price, so pick on the category that matters to you. Pick Grok 4.6 for knowledge (74 vs 71); pick Muse Wonder Full for reasoning (95 vs 64).

Grok 4.6 benchmarks medium SpaceXAI 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 62 category score; SciCode (AA) 62.6% vs 55.9%High
ReasoningMuse Wonder Full95 vs 64 category score; CritPt 32.9% vs 17.7%High
KnowledgeGrok 4.674 vs 71 category score; AA-Omniscience 28 vs 30.1Medium
Long documentsMuse Wonder Full67 vs 66 category score; AA-LCR 83.7% vs 81.0%Medium
High volume on a budgetNeither flagshipA smaller model is usually the better fit: Cheapest good LLMs, Fastest LLMs–

Key differences

  • Grok 4.6 (medium) and Muse Wonder Full (max) are neck and neck on quality (64.2 vs 70.7, within the ±9.7 margin).
  • Grok 4.6 (medium) is stronger in agents & tools, knowledge.
  • Muse Wonder Full (max) is stronger in coding, composite, long context, reasoning.

At a glance

SpecGrok 4.6Muse Wonder Full
DeveloperSpaceXAIMeta
Released11 Aug 202612 Oct 2026
Context window (tokens)500,0001,000,000
Compared atGrok 4.6 (medium)Muse Wonder Full (max)
Open weightsNoNo
Price in / out / cached input per 1M$2.00 / $6.00 / $0.500–

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.

CategoryGrok 4.6 (medium)Muse Wonder Full (max)Leader
Reasoning64.494.9Muse Wonder Full
Coding62.372.3Muse Wonder Full
Agents & tools73.5–not comparable
Knowledge74.171.4Grok 4.6
Long context65.667.0Muse Wonder Full
Composite77.491.9Muse Wonder Full

Where sources disagree

Across the 10 benchmarks both have, Grok 4.6 leads 0, Muse Wonder Full leads 10. Every overall index that rates both puts Muse Wonder Full ahead.

Overall indexGrok 4.6 (medium)Muse Wonder Full (max)Leader
BenchLeader Index64.270.7neck and neck
AA Intelligence Index v4.3.242.855.8Muse 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.

MeasureGrok 4.6 (medium)Muse Wonder Full (max)
Blended price per 1M tokens$3.00–
Input / output per 1M$2.00 / $6.00– / –
Cached input per 1M$0.500–
Price per task: chat reply$0.0026–
Price per task: summarize a 30-page report$0.028–
Price per task: code edit$0.021–
Price per task: agentic coding session$0.144–
Price per task: structured extraction$0.0052–
Cost to run a full benchmark suite$1.14–
Output speed84 tok/s–
Time to first answer25.5 s–
Time to a complete answer31.4 s–

Each model is compared at its best-ranked reasoning-effort setting. Grok 4.6 (medium) scores 64.2 and takes 25 s to its first answer token; Grok 4.6 (high) scores 62.9 in 25 s, Grok 4.6 (xhigh) scores 62.5 in 28 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

122 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.

MetricPublisherGrok 4.6 (medium)Muse Wonder Full (max)
BenchLeader IndexBenchLeader64.270.7
Agents & tools scoreBenchLeader73.5–
Coding scoreBenchLeader62.372.3
Composite scoreBenchLeader77.491.9
Knowledge scoreBenchLeader74.171.4
Long context scoreBenchLeader65.667.0
Reasoning scoreBenchLeader64.494.9
Blended price $/MBenchLeader$3.00–
Output speedBenchLeader84 tok/s–
Time to first answerBenchLeader25.5 s–
Context windowBenchLeader500,000 tokens1,000,000 tokens
Reasoning
GPQA DiamondEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub94.0%†–
SimpleBenchSimpleBench75.9%†–
Arena Hard PromptsArena (LMArena)1482†–
LiveBench 2.0 ReasoningLiveBench91.2%†–
LiveBench 1.0 ReasoningLiveBench90.5%†–
GPQA Diamond (AA)Artificial Analysis93.5%–
Humanity's Last Exam (AA)Artificial Analysis42.1%53.6%
GPQA Diamond (Vals)Vals AI94.7%†–
ARC-AGI-1ARC Prize87.5%–
ARC-AGI-2ARC Prize61.3%–
ARC-AGI-3ARC Prize2.1%†–
CritPtArtificial Analysis17.7%32.9%
MysteryMechanismVals AI30.6%†35.1%
Chess PuzzlesEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub33.0%†–
Mystery Game PuzzlesEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub34.0%†–
LMCAEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub48.5%†–
DTBenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub97.3%†–
ForecastBenchForecastBench65.5%†–
Coding
SciCodeSciCode55.9%–
WeirdMLWeirdML67.3%†–
FrontierCodeCognition48.0%†–
Arena CodingArena (LMArena)1510†–
Arena WebDevArena (LMArena)1617†1726
LiveBench 2.0 CodingLiveBench89.1%†–
LiveBench 1.0 CodingLiveBench76.8%†–
Show all 122 benchmarks
MetricPublisherGrok 4.6 (medium)Muse Wonder Full (max)
Coding
SciCode (AA)Artificial Analysis55.9%62.6%
LiveCodeBenchVals AI88.2%†–
IOIVals AI47.6%†79.8%
SWE-bench (Vals)Vals AI95.6%†–
Code MigrationVals AI44.6%†61.0%
Code Migration v1.1Vals AI–62.8%
ProgramBenchVals AI1.0%†0.5%
SWE-bench MultimodalVals AI–47.3%
Vibe Code Bench 1-100Vals AI14.8%†34.0%
Vibe Code Bench v1.1Vals AI76.2%†86.0%
DeepSWE v1.1Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub67.5%–
CursorBenchCursor36.1%–
ALE-BenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub1508.1†–
FrontierSWEEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub25.3%†–
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA)Artificial Analysis13.1%57.1%
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis84.3%–
Startrise FrontendStartrise72.1%†–
FrontierCode 1.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis–44.9%
Agents & tools
Terminal-BenchTerminal-Bench20.3%†–
APEX-AgentsMercor65.3%†–
Arena AgentArena (LMArena)0.7†–
LiveBench Long AgenticLiveBench40.7%†–
LiveBench BrowserLiveBench64.0%†–
LiveBench Agentic CodingLiveBench57.0%†–
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)Vals AI78.3%†–
GDPval-AA v2.1Artificial Analysis–67.8%
τ³-Banking (AA)Artificial Analysis44.3%–
Analyst Agent (AA)Artificial Analysis41.3%†–
CyberBenchVals AI67.7%†73.6%
Finance Agent v2Vals AI53.7%†59.1%
Finance Agent v2.1Vals AI–67.6%
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1.1Vals AI–23.3%
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1Vals AI15.8%†21.7%
Legal Research BenchVals AI48.1%†53.4%
Robo-benchVals AI–10.4%
SkillsBenchVals AI55.8%†–
SREBenchVals AI–11.8%
Tax Agent BenchVals AI33.1%†43.0%
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals)Vals AI17.2%†58.1%
Terminal-Bench ScienceVals AI11.4%†37.1%
Time Horizon Index: KSPVals AI5.8%†–
Vending-Bench 2Andon Labs9047.0†–
AutomationBenchArtificial Analysis63.1%71.3%
GDP.pdf (AA)Artificial Analysis17.8%32.6%
Harvey LAB-AA v1.1Harvey–13.1%
EnterpriseOps-GymArtificial Analysis48.3%†–
AA-Briefcase v1.1Artificial Analysis1531†1729
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis6.2%†37.1%
Maths
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub66.0%†–
FrontierMath Tier 4Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub31.7%†–
OTIS Mock AIMEEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub97.8%†–
ProofBenchVals AI51.0%†–
LiveBench MathematicsLiveBench92.6%†–
Arena MathsArena (LMArena)1445†–
Knowledge
SimpleQA VerifiedEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub49.3%†–
LiveBench 2.0 Data AnalysisLiveBench75.3%†–
LiveBench ResearchLiveBench84.5%†–
LiveBench 1.0 Data AnalysisLiveBench73.9%†–
AA-OmniscienceArtificial Analysis2830.1
MMLU-ProVals AI89.4%†–
LegalBenchVals AI86.3%†87.4%
CorpFinVals AI66.2%†–
TaxEvalVals AI71.1%†–
BioMysteryBenchVals AI72.2%†73.3%
Excel Modeling BenchmarkVals AI62.7%†71.9%
Excel Modeling Benchmark v1.1Vals AI–75.0%
MedCodeVals AI44.7%†49.9%
MedScribeVals AI86.5%†89.3%
Public Benefits Bench v1.1Vals AI66.8%†73.8%
EBR-benchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub30.5%†–
GDP.pdfEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub16.0%†–
AA-Omniscience: accuracyArtificial Analysis41.9%43.2%
AA-Omniscience: non-hallucinationArtificial Analysis76.0%77.0%
Instruction following
LiveBench LanguageLiveBench83.7%†–
LiveBench Instruction FollowingLiveBench71.9%†–
Arena Instruction FollowingArena (LMArena)1452†–
Human preference
Arena TextArena (LMArena)1456†–
Arena Creative WritingArena (LMArena)1443†–
Arena Multi-turnArena (LMArena)1448†–
Arena Longer QueriesArena (LMArena)1475†–
Multimodal
Arena VisionArena (LMArena)1263†–
LiveBench DesignLiveBench79.8%†–
MortgageTaxVals AI64.2%†–
SAGEVals AI28.9%†–
Blueprint-Bench 2Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub33.2%†–
Long context
AA-LCRArtificial Analysis81.0%83.7%
Arena DocumentArena (LMArena)1461†–
MLCRArtificial Analysis18.3%–
Composite
Epoch Capabilities IndexEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub156.6†–
LiveBench 2.0LiveBench74.9%†–
LiveBench 1.0LiveBench78.0%†–
AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2Artificial Analysis42.855.8
Vals IndexVals AI–66.8
Vals Finance IndexVals AI–64.5%
Vals RSI IndexVals AI25.5%†24.4%
Vals Science IndexVals AI38.1%†48.5%
Vals Router IndexVals AI–66.8%†

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

What changed

  • Muse Wonder Full (max): 1 new result (Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (AA)).
  • Muse Wonder Full (max): 9 new results (Code Migration v1.1, Excel Modeling Benchmark v1.1, Finance Agent v2.1…).
  • Grok 4.6 (medium): 1 new result (MLCR).
  • 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.
  • Grok 4.6 (medium): 15 new results (AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2, GPQA Diamond (AA), Humanity's Last Exam (AA)…).
  • Muse Wonder Full (max): 21 new results (IOI, LegalBench, Vals Index…).
  • Grok 4.6 (medium): 1 score revision.
  • Muse Wonder Full (max): 1 new result (Harvey LAB-AA v1.1).

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

Grok 4.6 vs Muse Wonder Full: questions

Is Grok 4.6 better than Muse Wonder Full?
Grok 4.6 (medium) and Muse Wonder Full (max) are neck and neck on quality (64.2 vs 70.7, within the ±9.7 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 Grok 4.6 better than Muse Wonder Full for coding?
Muse Wonder Full scores higher in coding (72 vs 62 on the category index, where 50 is average).
Which is better for long documents?
Muse Wonder Full scores higher on long-context benchmarks (67 vs 66). Muse Wonder Full accepts more context: 1,000,000 against 500,000 tokens for Grok 4.6.
Do independent benchmarks agree on Grok 4.6 vs Muse Wonder Full?
Across the 10 benchmarks both have, Grok 4.6 leads 0, Muse Wonder Full leads 10. 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.