LLMBenchmark.ai

Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GPT-4.1 vs Muse Wonder

Updated October 21, 2026. 34 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

GPT-4.1OpenAI
Coding
46.5
Overall
12.7
Output $/M
$8.00
0
Muse WonderMeta
Coding
64.5
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$20.00
34
vs boards won of 34 shared

Decision reading

Pick Muse Wonder for coding: it scores 64.5 on the Vibe Coding Index against 46.5 for GPT-4.1, though on 1 benchmark against 2.

Pick GPT-4.1 when output tokens cost 2.5x less.

Shared results
34
GPT-4.1 only
53
Muse Wonder only
26
Like-for-like categories
7 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.

At a glance

Coding index
GPT-4.1 46.5 from 2 benchmarks, Muse Wonder 64.5 from 1 benchmark.
Widest category
Web design, 44.5 points apart on average over 6 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
Design Arena: 3D: GPT-4.1 850 against Muse Wonder 1425, 71.9 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GPT-4.1 $8.00 against Muse Wonder $20.00 per million output tokens, 2.5x apart.
Context window
GPT-4.1 takes 1.05M 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.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryGPT-4.1BarsMuse WonderTies
Coding02
Intelligence01
Reasoning04
Math02
Knowledge04
Web design06
General015
All shared boards034
CodingLike-for-likeFour of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index02
Coding benchmarks for GPT-4.1 and Muse Wonder
BenchmarkGPT-4.1Muse WonderLeader
Aider polyglot52.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
SWE-bench Verified39.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
SWE-bench Multimodal31.1%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
LMArena WebDevNot measured1652Only Muse Wonder measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)54.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI)Not measured49.5%Only Muse Wonder measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)Not measured83.1%Only Muse Wonder measured
Code migration (Vals AI)Not measured62.5%Only Muse Wonder measured
IOI (Vals AI)Not measured66.9%Only Muse Wonder measured
SWE-bench Multimodal (Vals AI)Not measured45.6%Only Muse Wonder measured
Vibe Code Bench 1-100 (Vals AI)Not measured26.6%Only Muse Wonder measured
CyberBench (Vals AI)Not measured80.4%Only Muse Wonder measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)45.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
SciCodeNot measured60.3%Only Muse Wonder measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)13.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
WeirdML39.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
ALE-Bench558.1Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
LMArena Text: coding13901522Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: software and IT13911515Muse Wonder
LMArena WebDev: ReactNot measured1641Only Muse Wonder measured
LMArena WebDev: HTMLNot measured1694Only Muse Wonder measured
Neither model has a result on the other 17 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for GPT-4.1 and Muse Wonder
BenchmarkGPT-4.1Muse WonderLeader
AA Intelligence Index12.7Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
Epoch Capabilities Index136.7161.8Muse Wonder
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index12 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for GPT-4.1 and Muse Wonder
BenchmarkGPT-4.1Muse WonderLeader
Design Arena: spreadsheetsNot measured1236Only Muse Wonder measured
Finance Agent (Vals AI)Not measured56.6%Only Muse Wonder measured
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)Not measured36.3%Only Muse Wonder measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)Not measured50.5%Only Muse Wonder measured
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark (Vals AI)Not measured23.8%Only Muse Wonder measured
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)Not measured67.1%Only Muse Wonder measured
BioMysteryBench (Vals AI)Not measured67.0%Only Muse Wonder measured
Terminal-Bench-Science (Vals AI)Not measured22.9%Only Muse Wonder measured
Vals Science IndexNot measured39.1%Only Muse Wonder measured
CUA-bench (Vals AI)Not measured7.2%Only Muse Wonder measured
τ²-Bench Telecom47.1%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
Vending-Bench 2Not measured$9,432Only Muse Wonder measured
Neither model has a result on the other 27 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index04
Reasoning benchmarks for GPT-4.1 and Muse Wonder
BenchmarkGPT-4.1Muse WonderLeader
GPQA Diamond65.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
MysteryMechanism (Vals AI)Not measured27.5%Only Muse Wonder measured
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)72.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)66.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)4.2%50.1%Muse Wonder
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)66.9%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
ARC-AGI5.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
ARC-AGI-20.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
SimpleBench27.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
Chess puzzles3.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts13841506Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: expert13641513Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English13931506Muse Wonder
LMArena Vision: diagrams1215Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
LMArena Vision: homework1248Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Math benchmarks for GPT-4.1 and Muse Wonder
BenchmarkGPT-4.1Muse WonderLeader
AIME39.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
MATH 500 (Vals AI)87.2%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
MGSM (Vals AI)87.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
AA Math Index34.7Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)34.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
OTIS Mock AIME38.3%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 36.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
ProofBenchNot measured84.0%Only Muse Wonder measured
MATH level 583.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
LMArena Text: math13691486Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: mathematical work13601514Muse Wonder
Neither model has a result on the other 2 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index04
Knowledge benchmarks for GPT-4.1 and Muse Wonder
BenchmarkGPT-4.1Muse WonderLeader
MMLU Pro80.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)83.1%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
CaseLaw (Vals AI)69.9%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)63.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)75.1%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
MortgageTax (Vals AI)65.9%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
MedQA (Vals AI)91.2%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)80.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
SimpleQA Verified31.1%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
GeoBench72.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
LMArena Text: science13821506Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare13791512Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: legal and government13991505Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: business and finance13691483Muse Wonder
Neither model has a result on the other 3 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index06
Web design benchmarks for GPT-4.1 and Muse Wonder
BenchmarkGPT-4.1Muse WonderLeader
Design Arena: websites10391361Muse Wonder
Design Arena: UI components10001371Muse Wonder
Design Arena: game dev10801380Muse Wonder
Design Arena: data viz11041330Muse Wonder
Design Arena: 3D8501425Muse Wonder
Design Arena: all code categories10261370Muse Wonder
Neither model has a result on the other 3 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index015
General benchmarks for GPT-4.1 and Muse Wonder
BenchmarkGPT-4.1Muse WonderLeader
Vals IndexNot measured64.9%Only Muse Wonder measured
Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI)Not measured70.2%Only Muse Wonder measured
IFBench43.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)68.3%80.7%Muse Wonder
DTBench68.3%95.2%Muse Wonder
LMCA25.6%56.8%Muse Wonder
Fiction.LiveBench63.9%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
LMArena Text13831502Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: instruction following13671491Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: creative writing13631491Muse Wonder
LMArena Vision1210Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
LMArena Text: English13921507Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: non-English13701492Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: Chinese13821537Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: German1381Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
LMArena Text: Japanese1319Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
LMArena Text: Korean1338Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
LMArena Text: French13821523Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: Spanish1376Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
LMArena Text: Russian13771522Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: Polish1389Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn13971510Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: longer queries13851493Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: writing and language13711496Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: entertainment and media13651482Muse Wonder
LMArena Vision: English1209Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
LMArena Vision: Chinese1226Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
LMArena Vision: reading text1218Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
LMArena Vision: humor1196Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
LMArena Vision: captioning1207Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
LMArena Vision: recognizing things1208Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
LMArena Vision: creative writing1210Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 14 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for GPT-4.1 and Muse Wonder
BenchmarkGPT-4.1Muse WonderLeader
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

GPT-4.1$0.0060Fits in one request
Muse Wonder$0.014Fits in one request

GPT-4.1 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GPT-4.1$0.124Fits in one request
Muse Wonder$0.260Fits in one request

GPT-4.1 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GPT-4.1$0.480Fits in one request
Muse Wonder$1.00Fits in one request

GPT-4.1 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.

Specifications of GPT-4.1 and Muse Wonder
SpecificationOpenAI GPT-4.1Meta Muse Wonder
MakerOpenAIMeta
WeightsNo public weights listedNo public weights listed
ReleasedApril 14, 2025October 12, 2026
Context window1.05M1.05M
Input $/Mtok$2.00$4.00
Output $/Mtok$8.00$20.00
Coding index46.564.5
Independent measurements behind it21
Cost per solved task$0.37Not computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GPT-4.1 better than Muse Wonder for coding?

Pick Muse Wonder for coding: it scores 64.5 on the Vibe Coding Index against 46.5 for GPT-4.1, though on 1 benchmark against 2. Pick GPT-4.1 when output tokens cost 2.5x less.

Which is cheaper, GPT-4.1 or Muse Wonder?

GPT-4.1 costs $2.00 per million input tokens and $8.00 per million output tokens; Muse Wonder costs $4.00 and $20.00. Cost per solved task is known for GPT-4.1 only.

Which has the bigger context window, GPT-4.1 or Muse Wonder?

Muse Wonder, with 1.05M tokens against 1.05M.

How many benchmarks is the GPT-4.1 vs Muse Wonder comparison based on?

34 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. GPT-4.1's coding index rests on 2 independent benchmarks and Muse Wonder's on 1. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next