Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GPT-4o-mini vs Muse Wonder

GPT-4o-mini costs 33.3x less per output token than Muse Wonder ($0.60 vs $20.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 4 benchmarks have a result for both.

GPT-4o-miniOpenAI
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.60
0
Muse WonderMeta
Coding
71.9
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$20.00
4
vs boards won of 4 shared

GPT-4o-mini or Muse Wonder: which to pick

Only Muse Wonder has a coding score, 71.9 on the Vibe Coding Index; GPT-4o-mini has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick GPT-4o-mini for output tokens 33.3x cheaper ($0.60 vs $20.00 per million).

Shared results
4
GPT-4o-mini only
25
Muse Wonder only
56
Like-for-like categories
3 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.

At a glance

Coding index
GPT-4o-mini not benchmarked, Muse Wonder 71.9 from 3 benchmarks.
Widest category
Reasoning, 45.9 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
LMCA: GPT-4o-mini 10.4% against Muse Wonder 56.8%, 46.5 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GPT-4o-mini $0.60 against Muse Wonder $20.00 per million output tokens, 33.3x apart.
Context window
GPT-4o-mini takes 128K 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-4o-miniBarsMuse WonderTies
Intelligence01
Reasoning01
General02
All shared boards04
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index17 boards, none shared
Coding benchmarks for GPT-4o-mini and Muse Wonder
BenchmarkGPT-4o-miniMuse WonderLeader
LMArena WebDevNot measured1652Only Muse Wonder measured
AA Coding Index11.4Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)26.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini 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)23.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
SciCodeNot measured60.3%Only Muse Wonder measured
LMArena Text: codingNot measured1522Only Muse Wonder measured
LMArena Text: software and ITNot measured1515Only Muse Wonder measured
LMArena WebDev: ReactNot measured1641Only Muse Wonder measured
LMArena WebDev: HTMLNot measured1694Only Muse Wonder measured
SciCode1.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
Neither model has a result on the other 22 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for GPT-4o-mini and Muse Wonder
BenchmarkGPT-4o-miniMuse WonderLeader
AA Intelligence Index6.7Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
Epoch Capabilities Index126.5161.8Muse Wonder
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index11 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for GPT-4o-mini and Muse Wonder
BenchmarkGPT-4o-miniMuse WonderLeader
Design Arena: spreadsheetsNot measured1260Only 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
Vending-Bench 2Not measured$9,432Only Muse Wonder measured
Neither model has a result on the other 30 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Reasoning benchmarks for GPT-4o-mini and Muse Wonder
BenchmarkGPT-4o-miniMuse WonderLeader
GPQA Diamond44.2%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
MysteryMechanism (Vals AI)Not measured27.5%Only Muse Wonder measured
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)56.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)42.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)4.2%50.1%Muse Wonder
ARC-AGI-20.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
LMArena Text: hard promptsNot measured1506Only Muse Wonder measured
LMArena Text: expertNot measured1513Only Muse Wonder measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in EnglishNot measured1506Only Muse Wonder measured
Kagi LLM Benchmark28.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index9 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for GPT-4o-mini and Muse Wonder
BenchmarkGPT-4o-miniMuse WonderLeader
AIME11.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
MATH 500 (Vals AI)72.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
MGSM (Vals AI)86.2%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
AA Math Index14.7Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)14.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
ProofBenchNot measured84.0%Only Muse Wonder measured
GSM8K91.3%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
LMArena Text: mathNot measured1486Only Muse Wonder measured
LMArena Text: mathematical workNot measured1514Only Muse Wonder measured
Neither model has a result on the other 4 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index11 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for GPT-4o-mini and Muse Wonder
BenchmarkGPT-4o-miniMuse WonderLeader
MMLU Pro62.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)45.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)60.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
MortgageTax (Vals AI)54.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
MedQA (Vals AI)72.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)64.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
MMLU81.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
LMArena Text: scienceNot measured1506Only Muse Wonder measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcareNot measured1512Only Muse Wonder measured
LMArena Text: legal and governmentNot measured1505Only Muse Wonder measured
LMArena Text: business and financeNot measured1483Only Muse Wonder measured
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for GPT-4o-mini and Muse Wonder
BenchmarkGPT-4o-miniMuse WonderLeader
Design Arena: websitesNot measured1363Only Muse Wonder measured
Design Arena: UI componentsNot measured1380Only Muse Wonder measured
Design Arena: game devNot measured1378Only Muse Wonder measured
Design Arena: data vizNot measured1312Only Muse Wonder measured
Design Arena: 3DNot measured1428Only Muse Wonder measured
Design Arena: all code categoriesNot measured1371Only 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 index02
General benchmarks for GPT-4o-mini and Muse Wonder
BenchmarkGPT-4o-miniMuse WonderLeader
Vals IndexNot measured64.9%Only Muse Wonder measured
Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI)Not measured70.2%Only Muse Wonder measured
IFBench31.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)Not measured80.7%Only Muse Wonder measured
DTBench54.4%95.2%Muse Wonder
LMCA10.4%56.8%Muse Wonder
PIQA88.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
LMArena TextNot measured1502Only Muse Wonder measured
LMArena Text: instruction followingNot measured1491Only Muse Wonder measured
LMArena Text: creative writingNot measured1491Only Muse Wonder measured
LMArena Text: EnglishNot measured1507Only Muse Wonder measured
LMArena Text: non-EnglishNot measured1492Only Muse Wonder measured
LMArena Text: ChineseNot measured1537Only Muse Wonder measured
LMArena Text: FrenchNot measured1523Only Muse Wonder measured
LMArena Text: RussianNot measured1522Only Muse Wonder measured
LMArena Text: multi-turnNot measured1510Only Muse Wonder measured
LMArena Text: longer queriesNot measured1493Only Muse Wonder measured
LMArena Text: writing and languageNot measured1496Only Muse Wonder measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and mediaNot measured1482Only Muse Wonder measured
Neither model has a result on the other 27 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for GPT-4o-mini and Muse Wonder
BenchmarkGPT-4o-miniMuse 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-4o-mini$0.0004Fits in one request
Muse Wonder$0.014Fits in one request

GPT-4o-mini costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GPT-4o-mini$0.0093Fits in one request
Muse Wonder$0.260Fits in one request

GPT-4o-mini costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GPT-4o-mini$0.036Exceeds the context window
Muse Wonder$1.00Fits in one request

GPT-4o-mini 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-4o-mini and Muse Wonder
SpecificationOpenAI GPT-4o-miniMeta Muse Wonder
MakerOpenAIMeta
WeightsNo public weights listedNo public weights listed
ReleasedJuly 18, 2024October 12, 2026
Context window128K1.05M
Input $/Mtok$0.15$4.00
Output $/Mtok$0.60$20.00
Coding indexNot benchmarked71.9
Independent measurements behind it03
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GPT-4o-mini better than Muse Wonder for coding?

Only Muse Wonder has a coding score, 71.9 on the Vibe Coding Index; GPT-4o-mini has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick GPT-4o-mini for output tokens 33.3x cheaper ($0.60 vs $20.00 per million).

Which is cheaper, GPT-4o-mini or Muse Wonder?

GPT-4o-mini costs $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.60 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, GPT-4o-mini or Muse Wonder?

Muse Wonder, with 1.05M tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks is the GPT-4o-mini vs Muse Wonder comparison based on?

4 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. GPT-4o-mini's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Muse Wonder's on 3. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next