Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Muse Wonder
Updated October 21, 2026. 32 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.
Decision reading
Pick Muse Wonder for coding: it scores 64.5 on the Vibe Coding Index against 22.8 for Gemma 4 26B A4B.
Pick Gemma 4 26B A4B when output tokens cost 78.4x less.
- Shared results
- 32
- Gemma 4 26B A4B only
- 22
- Muse Wonder only
- 28
- Like-for-like categories
- 6 of 9
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results only one model has describe coverage, not superiority.
Which one for your work
Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, four public coding benchmarks
Muse Wonder
Muse Wonder scores 64.5 against 22.8.
One benchmark behind each score
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
No call
Only Gemma 4 26B A4B has a AA Intelligence Index result, 16.7.
Directional only
Agentic work
AA Agentic Index
No call
Only Gemma 4 26B A4B has a AA Agentic Index result, 2.9.
Directional only
Web design
Design Arena: websites
No call
Only Muse Wonder has a Design Arena: websites result, 1361.
Directional only
General
Vals Index
No call
Only Muse Wonder has a Vals Index result, 64.9%.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
Muse Wonder
Muse Wonder takes 1.05M tokens against 262K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Gemma 4 26B A4B
Gemma 4 26B A4B $0.0002, Muse Wonder $0.014 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Gemma 4 26B A4B 22.8 from 1 benchmark, Muse Wonder 64.5 from 1 benchmark.
- Widest category
- Coding, 27.7 points apart on average over 6 shared benchmarks.
- Widest single gap
- LMArena WebDev: Gemma 4 26B A4B 1360 against Muse Wonder 1652, 41.7 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Gemma 4 26B A4B $0.255 against Muse Wonder $20.00 per million output tokens, 78.4x apart.
- Context window
- Gemma 4 26B A4B takes 262K tokens, Muse Wonder 1.05M.
Benchmark by benchmark
First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.
| Category | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Bars | Muse Wonder | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 0 | 6 | ||
| Intelligence | 0 | 1 | ||
| Reasoning | 0 | 4 | ||
| Math | 0 | 2 | ||
| Knowledge | 0 | 4 | ||
| General | 0 | 15 | ||
| All shared boards | 0 | 32 |
CodingLike-for-likeFour of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index06
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Muse Wonder | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1360 | 1652 | Muse Wonder |
| AA Coding Index | 39.3 | Not measured | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI) | Not measured | 49.5% | Only Muse Wonder measured |
| Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 83.1% | Only Muse Wonder measured |
| Code migration (Vals AI) | Not measured | 62.5% | Only Muse Wonder measured |
| IOI (Vals AI) | Not measured | 66.9% | Only Muse Wonder measured |
| SWE-bench Multimodal (Vals AI) | Not measured | 45.6% | Only Muse Wonder measured |
| Vibe Code Bench 1-100 (Vals AI) | Not measured | 26.6% | Only Muse Wonder measured |
| CyberBench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 80.4% | Only Muse Wonder measured |
| SciCode | 40.0% | 60.3% | Muse Wonder |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | 25.0% | Not measured | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| WeirdML | 35.2% | Not measured | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| ALE-Bench | 927.2 | Not measured | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| LMArena Text: coding | 1446 | 1522 | Muse Wonder |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | 1454 | 1515 | Muse Wonder |
| LMArena WebDev: React | 1351 | 1641 | Muse Wonder |
| LMArena WebDev: HTML | 1362 | 1694 | Muse Wonder |
| Neither model has a result on the other 21 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Muse Wonder | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 16.7 | Not measured | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 141.9 | 161.8 | Muse Wonder |
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index13 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Muse Wonder | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic Index | 2.9 | Not measured | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| Design Arena: spreadsheets | Not measured | 1236 | Only Muse Wonder measured |
| Finance Agent (Vals AI) | Not measured | 56.6% | Only Muse Wonder measured |
| Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 36.3% | Only Muse Wonder measured |
| Legal Research Bench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 50.5% | Only Muse Wonder measured |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark (Vals AI) | Not measured | 23.8% | Only Muse Wonder measured |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI) | Not measured | 67.1% | Only Muse Wonder measured |
| BioMysteryBench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 67.0% | Only Muse Wonder measured |
| Terminal-Bench-Science (Vals AI) | Not measured | 22.9% | Only Muse Wonder measured |
| Vals Science Index | Not measured | 39.1% | Only Muse Wonder measured |
| CUA-bench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 7.2% | Only Muse Wonder measured |
| τ²-Bench Telecom | 43.6% | Not measured | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| Vending-Bench 2 | Not measured | $9,432 | Only Muse Wonder measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 26 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index04
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Muse Wonder | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MysteryMechanism (Vals AI) | Not measured | 27.5% | Only Muse Wonder measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 79.2% | Not measured | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 19.3% | 50.1% | Muse Wonder |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | 73.2% | Not measured | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | 1438 | 1506 | Muse Wonder |
| LMArena Text: expert | 1447 | 1513 | Muse Wonder |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | 1448 | 1506 | Muse Wonder |
| LMArena Vision: diagrams | 1264 | Not measured | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| LMArena Vision: homework | 1293 | Not measured | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here | |||
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Muse Wonder | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME | 82.2% | Not measured | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| ProofBench | Not measured | 84.0% | Only Muse Wonder measured |
| LMArena Text: math | 1470 | 1486 | Muse Wonder |
| LMArena Text: mathematical work | 1475 | 1514 | Muse Wonder |
| Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here | |||
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index04
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Muse Wonder | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text: science | 1446 | 1506 | Muse Wonder |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | 1428 | 1512 | Muse Wonder |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | 1457 | 1505 | Muse Wonder |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | 1429 | 1483 | Muse Wonder |
| Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here | |||
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Muse Wonder | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: websites | Not measured | 1361 | Only Muse Wonder measured |
| Design Arena: UI components | Not measured | 1371 | Only Muse Wonder measured |
| Design Arena: game dev | Not measured | 1380 | Only Muse Wonder measured |
| Design Arena: data viz | Not measured | 1330 | Only Muse Wonder measured |
| Design Arena: 3D | Not measured | 1425 | Only Muse Wonder measured |
| Design Arena: all code categories | Not measured | 1370 | Only Muse Wonder measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 3 boards here | |||
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index015
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Muse Wonder | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vals Index | Not measured | 64.9% | Only Muse Wonder measured |
| Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 70.2% | Only Muse Wonder measured |
| IFBench | 72.4% | Not measured | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 65.7% | 80.7% | Muse Wonder |
| DTBench | 74.9% | 95.2% | Muse Wonder |
| LMCA | 29.7% | 56.8% | Muse Wonder |
| LMArena Text | 1434 | 1502 | Muse Wonder |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | 1420 | 1491 | Muse Wonder |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | 1400 | 1491 | Muse Wonder |
| LMArena Vision | 1260 | Not measured | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| LMArena Text: English | 1444 | 1507 | Muse Wonder |
| LMArena Text: non-English | 1421 | 1492 | Muse Wonder |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | 1495 | 1537 | Muse Wonder |
| LMArena Text: French | 1460 | 1523 | Muse Wonder |
| LMArena Text: Spanish | 1415 | Not measured | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| LMArena Text: Russian | 1434 | 1522 | Muse Wonder |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | 1441 | 1510 | Muse Wonder |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | 1427 | 1493 | Muse Wonder |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | 1405 | 1496 | Muse Wonder |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | 1403 | 1482 | Muse Wonder |
| LMArena Vision: English | 1256 | Not measured | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| LMArena Vision: Chinese | 1312 | Not measured | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| LMArena Vision: reading text | 1268 | Not measured | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| LMArena Vision: humor | 1272 | Not measured | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| LMArena Vision: captioning | 1297 | Not measured | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| LMArena Vision: recognizing things | 1191 | Not measured | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| LMArena Vision: creative writing | 1256 | Not measured | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 19 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Muse Wonder | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 5 boards here | |||
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.
Chat turn
1K input + 500 output tokens
Gemma 4 26B A4B costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Gemma 4 26B A4B costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Gemma 4 26B A4B costs less
Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.
Specification differences
The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.
| Specification | Google Gemma 4 26B A4B | Meta Muse Wonder |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Meta | |
| Weights | Open weights | No public weights listed |
| Released | April 3, 2026 | October 12, 2026 |
| Context window | 262K | 1.05M |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.0765 | $4.00 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.255 | $20.00 |
| Coding index | 22.8 | 64.5 |
| Independent measurements behind it | 1 | 1 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Gemma 4 26B A4B better than Muse Wonder for coding?
Pick Muse Wonder for coding: it scores 64.5 on the Vibe Coding Index against 22.8 for Gemma 4 26B A4B. Pick Gemma 4 26B A4B when output tokens cost 78.4x less.
Which is cheaper, Gemma 4 26B A4B or Muse Wonder?
Gemma 4 26B A4B costs $0.0765 per million input tokens and $0.255 per million output tokens; Muse Wonder costs $4.00 and $20.00. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Gemma 4 26B A4B or Muse Wonder?
Muse Wonder, with 1.05M tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks is the Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Muse Wonder comparison based on?
32 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Gemma 4 26B A4B's coding index rests on 1 independent benchmark and Muse Wonder's on 1. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.