GLM 5.2 vs Muse Wonder
Muse Wonder leads GLM 5.2 on coding, 71.9 to 61.1 on the Vibe Coding Index, and GLM 5.2 costs 4.5x less per output token ($4.40 vs $20.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 45 benchmarks have a result for both.
GLM 5.2 or Muse Wonder: which to pick
Pick Muse Wonder for coding: it scores 71.9 on the Vibe Coding Index against 61.1 for GLM 5.2, though on 3 benchmarks against 4.
Pick GLM 5.2 for output tokens 4.5x cheaper ($4.40 vs $20.00 per million).
- Shared results
- 45
- GLM 5.2 only
- 53
- Muse Wonder only
- 15
- Like-for-like categories
- 8 of 9
Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.
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, six public coding benchmarks
Muse Wonder
Muse Wonder scores 71.9 against 61.1.
4 and 3 benchmarks behind the scores
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
No call
Only GLM 5.2 has a AA Intelligence Index result, 33.7.
Directional only
Agentic work
AA Agentic Index
No call
Only GLM 5.2 has a AA Agentic Index result, 38.4.
Directional only
Reasoning
GPQA Diamond
No call
Only GLM 5.2 has a GPQA Diamond result, 85.6%.
Directional only
Knowledge
MMLU Pro
No call
Only GLM 5.2 has a MMLU Pro result, 86.7%.
Directional only
Web design
Design Arena: websites
Muse Wonder
Muse Wonder leads, 1362 against 1285.
Same board, both measured
General
Vals Index
No call
Only Muse Wonder has a Vals Index result, 64.9%.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
No call
Both take 1.05M tokens.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
GLM 5.2
GLM 5.2 $0.0036, Muse Wonder $0.014 per turn.
List prices
Cost per solved task
One SWE-bench Verified task, solved
No call
Only GLM 5.2 has the number, $0.86.
Directional only
At a glance
- Coding index
- GLM 5.2 61.1 from 4 benchmarks, Muse Wonder 71.9 from 3 benchmarks.
- Widest category
- Math, 17.9 points apart on average over 3 shared benchmarks.
- Widest single gap
- ProofBench: GLM 5.2 35.0% against Muse Wonder 84.0%, 49.0 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- GLM 5.2 $4.40 against Muse Wonder $20.00 per million output tokens, 4.5x apart.
- Context window
- Both take 1.05M tokens.
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 | GLM 5.2 | Bars | Muse Wonder | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 0 | 8 | ||
| Intelligence | 0 | 1 | ||
| Agentic work | 0 | 4 | ||
| Reasoning | 0 | 4 | ||
| Math | 0 | 3 | ||
| Knowledge | 0 | 4 | ||
| Web design | 0 | 6 | ||
| General | 0 | 15 | ||
| All shared boards | 0 | 45 |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index08
| Benchmark | GLM 5.2 | Muse Wonder | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1604 | 1652 | Muse Wonder |
| AA Coding Index | 68.8 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) | 69.5% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI) | 82.8% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI) | Not measured | 49.5% | Only Muse Wonder measured |
| Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) | 64.0% | 83.1% | Muse Wonder |
| Code migration (Vals AI) | 37.9% | 62.5% | Muse Wonder |
| ProgramBench (Vals AI) | 0.5% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| IOI (Vals AI) | Not measured | 66.9% | Only Muse Wonder measured |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI) | 67.8% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 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 |
| SkillsBench (Vals AI) | 45.1% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| CyberBench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 80.4% | Only Muse Wonder measured |
| SciCode | 51.2% | 60.3% | Muse Wonder |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | 50.8% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| FrontierCode | 24.5% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| WeirdML | 70.1% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| ALE-Bench | 1047.0 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: coding | 1487 | 1522 | Muse Wonder |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | 1486 | 1515 | Muse Wonder |
| LMArena WebDev: React | 1617 | 1641 | Muse Wonder |
| LMArena WebDev: HTML | 1565 | 1694 | Muse Wonder |
| Neither model has a result on the other 16 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | GLM 5.2 | Muse Wonder | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 33.7 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 151.9 | 161.8 | Muse Wonder |
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index04
| Benchmark | GLM 5.2 | Muse Wonder | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic Index | 38.4 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: agents building web apps | 1222 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: agents building full-stack apps | 1241 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: agents building mobile apps | 1159 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: agents building Android apps | 1178 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: agents building Godot games | 1142 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: agents building games | 1206 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: HTML slides | 1125 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: PowerPoint slides | 1170 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: spreadsheets | Not measured | 1243 | Only Muse Wonder measured |
| SREBench (Vals AI) | 0.0% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Finance Agent (Vals AI) | 49.7% | 56.6% | Muse Wonder |
| Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 36.3% | Only Muse Wonder measured |
| Legal Research Bench (Vals AI) | 31.3% | 50.5% | Muse Wonder |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark (Vals AI) | Not measured | 23.8% | Only Muse Wonder measured |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI) | 61.5% | 67.1% | Muse Wonder |
| 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 | 99.1% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| APEX-Agents | 45.2% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| PostTrainBench | 31.7% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Vending-Bench 2 | $8,314 | $9,432 | Muse Wonder |
| Neither model has a result on the other 17 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index04
| Benchmark | GLM 5.2 | Muse Wonder | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 85.6% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| MysteryMechanism (Vals AI) | Not measured | 27.5% | Only Muse Wonder measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 89.5% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 41.1% | 50.1% | Muse Wonder |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | 91.9% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| ARC-AGI | 77.0% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 22.8% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| SimpleBench | 58.8% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Chess puzzles | 22.0% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Mystery game puzzles | 19.0% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| EBR-bench | 9.5% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | 1481 | 1506 | Muse Wonder |
| LMArena Text: expert | 1487 | 1513 | Muse Wonder |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | 1481 | 1506 | Muse Wonder |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 62.6% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here | |||
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index03
| Benchmark | GLM 5.2 | Muse Wonder | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME | 86.4% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3 | 59.2% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| FrontierMath, tier 4 | 29.3% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| ProofBench | 35.0% | 84.0% | Muse Wonder |
| LMArena Text: math | 1483 | 1486 | Muse Wonder |
| LMArena Text: mathematical work | 1489 | 1514 | Muse Wonder |
| Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here | |||
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index04
| Benchmark | GLM 5.2 | Muse Wonder | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro | 86.7% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| LegalBench (Vals AI) | 84.1% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| CorpFin (Vals AI) | 66.1% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| TaxEval (Vals AI) | 73.3% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| MedCode (Vals AI) | 40.8% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| SimpleQA Verified | 34.2% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: science | 1489 | 1506 | Muse Wonder |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | 1475 | 1512 | Muse Wonder |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | 1486 | 1505 | Muse Wonder |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | 1451 | 1483 | Muse Wonder |
| Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here | |||
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index06
| Benchmark | GLM 5.2 | Muse Wonder | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: websites | 1285 | 1362 | Muse Wonder |
| Design Arena: UI components | 1294 | 1379 | Muse Wonder |
| Design Arena: game dev | 1268 | 1376 | Muse Wonder |
| Design Arena: data viz | 1285 | 1317 | Muse Wonder |
| Design Arena: 3D | 1287 | 1427 | Muse Wonder |
| Design Arena: all code categories | 1287 | 1371 | Muse Wonder |
| Design Arena: SVG | 1213 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: ASCII art | 1191 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index015
| Benchmark | GLM 5.2 | 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 |
| MedScribe (Vals AI) | 83.5% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| IFBench | 73.3% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 78.3% | 80.7% | Muse Wonder |
| DTBench | 93.6% | 95.2% | Muse Wonder |
| LMCA | 45.8% | 56.8% | Muse Wonder |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 55.6% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text | 1470 | 1502 | Muse Wonder |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | 1466 | 1491 | Muse Wonder |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | 1463 | 1491 | Muse Wonder |
| LMArena Text: English | 1475 | 1507 | Muse Wonder |
| LMArena Text: non-English | 1459 | 1492 | Muse Wonder |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | 1522 | 1537 | Muse Wonder |
| LMArena Text: German | 1470 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: Japanese | 1450 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: Korean | 1440 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: French | 1479 | 1523 | Muse Wonder |
| LMArena Text: Spanish | 1478 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: Russian | 1468 | 1522 | Muse Wonder |
| LMArena Text: Polish | 1456 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | 1469 | 1510 | Muse Wonder |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | 1480 | 1493 | Muse Wonder |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | 1463 | 1496 | Muse Wonder |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | 1450 | 1482 | Muse Wonder |
| Neither model has a result on the other 21 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GLM 5.2 | 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
GLM 5.2 costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
GLM 5.2 costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
GLM 5.2 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 | Z.ai GLM 5.2 | Meta Muse Wonder |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Z.ai | Meta |
| Weights | Open weights | No public weights listed |
| Released | June 16, 2026 | October 12, 2026 |
| Context window | 1.05M | 1.05M |
| Input $/Mtok | $1.40 | $4.00 |
| Output $/Mtok | $4.40 | $20.00 |
| Coding index | 61.1 | 71.9 |
| Independent measurements behind it | 4 | 3 |
| Cost per solved task | $0.86 | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is GLM 5.2 better than Muse Wonder for coding?
Pick Muse Wonder for coding: it scores 71.9 on the Vibe Coding Index against 61.1 for GLM 5.2, though on 3 benchmarks against 4. Pick GLM 5.2 for output tokens 4.5x cheaper ($4.40 vs $20.00 per million).
Which is cheaper, GLM 5.2 or Muse Wonder?
GLM 5.2 costs $1.40 per million input tokens and $4.40 per million output tokens; Muse Wonder costs $4.00 and $20.00. Cost per solved task is known for GLM 5.2 only.
Which has the bigger context window, GLM 5.2 or Muse Wonder?
Neither: both take 1.05M tokens.
How many benchmarks is the GLM 5.2 vs Muse Wonder comparison based on?
45 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. GLM 5.2's coding index rests on 4 independent benchmarks and Muse Wonder's on 3. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.