Muse Wonder vs Qwen3.6 Max
As of 13 Oct 2026, Muse Wonder (max) leads on quality (66.3 vs 62.4 on the BenchLeader Index), but Qwen3.6 Max (max) costs 2.7× less, so it is the better buy unless you need the extra quality.
Muse Wonder 
Qwen3.6 Max Key differences
- Muse Wonder (max) leads on quality: 66.3 vs 62.4.
- Muse Wonder (max) is stronger in composite, knowledge, reasoning.
- Qwen3.6 Max (max) is stronger in agents & tools, coding, human preference, instruction following, maths.
- Qwen3.6 Max (max) is 2.7× cheaper ($2.92 vs $8.00 per 1M blended).
Choose Muse Wonder (max) if
- reasoning is the priority (88 vs 58 on the category score)
- knowledge is the priority (73 vs 63 on the category score)
- you need a longer context: 1.0M against 262k tokens
Choose Qwen3.6 Max (max) if
- cost matters: $2.92 against $8.00 per million tokens blended
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 | Muse Wonder (max) | Qwen3.6 Max (max) | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning | 87.8 | 58.3 | Muse Wonder |
| Coding | – | 56.9 | not comparable |
| Agents & tools | – | 71.9 | not comparable |
| Maths | – | 65.3 | not comparable |
| Knowledge | 73.0 | 62.5 | Muse Wonder |
| Instruction following | – | 74.4 | not comparable |
| Human preference | – | 65.2 | not comparable |
| Long context | 65.5 | 65.5 | level |
| Composite | 78.2 | 61.4 | 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 | Muse Wonder (max) | Qwen3.6 Max (max) |
|---|---|---|
| Blended price per 1M tokens | $8.00 | $2.92 |
| Input / output per 1M | $4.00 / $20.00 | $1.30 / $7.80 |
| Price per task: chat reply | $0.0076 | $0.0029 |
| Price per task: summarise a 30-page report | $0.060 | $0.020 |
| Price per task: code edit | $0.054 | $0.019 |
| Price per task: agentic coding session | $0.320 | $0.109 |
| Price per task: structured extraction | $0.012 | $0.0042 |
| Cost to run a full benchmark suite | $4.52 | – |
| Output speed | 85 tok/s | – |
| Time to first answer | 60.8 s | – |
| Time to a complete answer | 66.7 s | – |
Every benchmark
| Metric | Muse Wonder (max) | Qwen3.6 Max (max) |
|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 66.3 | 62.4 |
| Composite score | 78.2 | 61.4 |
| Knowledge score | 73.0 | 62.5 |
| Long context score | 65.5 | 65.5 |
| Reasoning score | 87.8 | 58.3 |
| Agents & tools score | – | 71.9 |
| Coding score | – | 56.9 |
| Human preference score | – | 65.2 |
| Instruction following score | – | 74.4 |
| Maths score | – | 65.3 |
| Blended price $/M | $8.00 | $2.92 |
| Output speed | 85 tok/s | – |
| Time to first answer | 60.8 s | – |
| Context window | 1.0M | 262k |
| GPQA Diamond | – | 87.4% |
| OTIS Mock AIME | – | 91.1% |
| SWE-bench Verified (Epoch) | – | 76.7% |
| SimpleQA Verified | – | 52.0% |
| SimpleBench | – | 63.0% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | – | 149.2 |
| LMArena Text | – | 1460 |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | – | 1482 |
| LMArena Coding | – | 1511 |
| LMArena WebDev | – | 1482 |
| 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 | 52.4 | 28.4 |
| IFBench | – | 76.6% |
| AA-LCR | 80.7% | 80.7% |
| AA-Omniscience | 25.5 | 9.2 |
| Terminal-Bench Hard | – | 43.9% |
| GPQA Diamond (AA) | – | 88.8% |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | 50.1% | 30.8% |
| SciCode (AA) | 60.3% | – |
| τ²-Bench Telecom (AA) | – | 95.9% |
| CorpFin | – | 66.5% |
| SWE-bench (Vals) | – | 72.8% |
| CritPt | 28.3% | 3.7% |
| GDPval-AA v2.1 | 63.5% | – |
| CaseLaw v2 | – | 47.9% |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0 (Vals) | – | 51.7% |
| LMArena Maths | – | 1476 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | – | 1437 |
| LMArena Instruction Following | – | 1451 |
| LMArena Multi-turn | – | 1469 |
| LMArena Longer Queries | – | 1473 |
| Chess Puzzles | – | 20.0% |
| LMCA | – | 42.5% |
| DTBench | – | 87.2% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | – | 4254.2 |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA) | 52.0% | – |
| AutomationBench | 68.1% | – |
| GDP.pdf | 30.6% | – |
| AA-Omniscience: accuracy | 41.1% | 37.9% |
| AA-Omniscience: non-hallucination | 73.5% | 53.8% |
| 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.
Muse Wonder vs Qwen3.6 Max: questions
- Is Muse Wonder better than Qwen3.6 Max?
- Muse Wonder (max) leads on quality: 66.3 vs 62.4. 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, Muse Wonder or Qwen3.6 Max?
- Qwen3.6 Max is cheaper: $2.92 against $8.00 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token.
- Which has the larger context window?
- Muse Wonder accepts more context: 1.0M against 262k tokens.