Muse Wonder vs Step 5 Preview
As of 13 Oct 2026, Muse Wonder (max) leads on quality (66.3 vs 63.2 on the BenchLeader Index), but Step 5 Preview costs 5.6× less, so it is the better buy unless you need the extra quality.
Muse Wonder 
Step 5 Preview Key differences
- Muse Wonder (max) leads on quality: 66.3 vs 63.2.
- Muse Wonder (max) is stronger in knowledge, reasoning.
- Step 5 Preview is stronger in composite, long context, agents & tools, coding, human preference, maths, multimodal.
- Step 5 Preview is 5.6× cheaper ($1.43 vs $8.00 per 1M blended).
Choose Muse Wonder (max) if
- reasoning is the priority (88 vs 72 on the category score)
- knowledge is the priority (73 vs 69 on the category score)
Choose Step 5 Preview if
- long context is the priority (70 vs 66 on the category score)
- cost matters: $1.43 against $8.00 per million tokens blended
- the wait for the first word matters: 25.5 s against 60.8 s to first answer
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) | Step 5 Preview | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning | 87.8 | 71.9 | Muse Wonder |
| Coding | – | 65.6 | not comparable |
| Agents & tools | – | 51.5 | not comparable |
| Maths | – | 61.1 | not comparable |
| Knowledge | 73.0 | 68.9 | Muse Wonder |
| Human preference | – | 63.6 | not comparable |
| Multimodal | – | 60.0 | not comparable |
| Long context | 65.5 | 69.5 | Step 5 Preview |
| Composite | 78.2 | 78.7 | level |
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) | Step 5 Preview |
|---|---|---|
| Blended price per 1M tokens | $8.00 | $1.43 |
| Input / output per 1M | $4.00 / $20.00 | $1.00 / $2.70 |
| Price per task: chat reply | $0.0076 | $0.0012 |
| Price per task: summarise a 30-page report | $0.060 | $0.014 |
| Price per task: code edit | $0.054 | $0.010 |
| Price per task: agentic coding session | $0.320 | $0.071 |
| Price per task: structured extraction | $0.012 | $0.0025 |
| Cost to run a full benchmark suite | $4.52 | $1.03 |
| Output speed | 85 tok/s | 89 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 60.8 s | 25.5 s |
| Time to a complete answer | 66.7 s | 31.2 s |
Every benchmark
| Metric | Muse Wonder (max) | Step 5 Preview |
|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 66.3 | 63.2 |
| Composite score | 78.2 | 78.7 |
| Knowledge score | 73.0 | 68.9 |
| Long context score | 65.5 | 69.5 |
| Reasoning score | 87.8 | 71.9 |
| Agents & tools score | – | 51.5 |
| Coding score | – | 65.6 |
| Human preference score | – | 63.6 |
| Maths score | – | 61.1 |
| Multimodal score | – | 60.0 |
| Blended price $/M | $8.00 | $1.43 |
| Output speed | 85 tok/s | 89 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 60.8 s | 25.5 s |
| Context window | 1.0M | 1M |
| SciCode | – | 58.9% |
| ProofBench | – | 42.0% |
| LMArena Text | – | 1447 |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | – | 1479 |
| LMArena Coding | – | 1503 |
| LMArena Vision | – | 1267 |
| LMArena Agent | – | 0 |
| 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 | 43.7 |
| AA-LCR | 80.7% | 88.3% |
| MMMU-Pro | – | 76.4% |
| AA-Omniscience | 25.5 | 16.4 |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | 50.1% | 46.5% |
| SciCode (AA) | 60.3% | 58.9% |
| CritPt | 28.3% | 20.9% |
| GDPval-AA v2.1 | 63.5% | 54.2% |
| ITBench SRE (AA) | – | 55.6% |
| Analyst Agent (AA) | – | 35.0% |
| APEX-Agents (AA) | – | 38.0% |
| LMArena Maths | – | 1478 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | – | 1406 |
| LMArena Instruction Following | – | 1449 |
| LMArena Multi-turn | – | 1453 |
| LMArena Longer Queries | – | 1462 |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA) | 52.0% | 33.3% |
| AutomationBench | 68.1% | 51.0% |
| GDP.pdf | 30.6% | 14.8% |
| MLCR | – | 16.7% |
| EnterpriseOps-Gym | – | 47.2% |
| AA-Omniscience: accuracy | 41.1% | 41.5% |
| AA-Omniscience: non-hallucination | 73.5% | 57.0% |
| AA-Briefcase v1.1 | 1659 | 1425 |
| FrontierCode 1.1 (AA) | – | 38.4% |
| Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (AA) | – | 2.4% |
| AA Cyber Index | – | 4770.7% |
| CWE-Bench (AA) | – | 52.5% |
| DeepSec-Bench (AA) | – | 15.8% |
| CyberGym end-to-end (AA) | – | 74.8% |
| AA-3D | – | 848 |
Data as of 2026-10-13. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
Muse Wonder vs Step 5 Preview: questions
- Is Muse Wonder better than Step 5 Preview?
- Muse Wonder (max) leads on quality: 66.3 vs 63.2. 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 Step 5 Preview?
- Step 5 Preview is cheaper: $1.43 against $8.00 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token.
- Which is faster, Muse Wonder or Step 5 Preview?
- Step 5 Preview streams faster: 89 against 85 output tokens per second.
- Which has the larger context window?
- Muse Wonder accepts more context: 1.0M against 1M tokens.