Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GPT-5.4 Nano vs Muse Wonder

Muse Wonder leads GPT-5.4 Nano on coding, 71.9 to 44.8 on the Vibe Coding Index, and GPT-5.4 Nano costs 16.0x less per output token ($1.25 vs $20.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 36 benchmarks have a result for both.

GPT-5.4 NanoOpenAI
Coding
44.8
Overall
45.7
Output $/M
$1.25
0
Muse WonderMeta
Coding
71.9
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$20.00
36
vs boards won of 36 shared

GPT-5.4 Nano or Muse Wonder: which to pick

Pick Muse Wonder for coding: it scores 71.9 on the Vibe Coding Index against 44.8 for GPT-5.4 Nano.

Pick GPT-5.4 Nano for output tokens 16.0x cheaper ($1.25 vs $20.00 per million).

Shared results
36
GPT-5.4 Nano only
49
Muse Wonder only
24
Like-for-like categories
7 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-5.4 Nano 44.8 from 2 benchmarks, Muse Wonder 71.9 from 3 benchmarks.
Widest category
Math, 36.6 points apart on average over 3 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
ProofBench: GPT-5.4 Nano 5.0% against Muse Wonder 84.0%, 79.0 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GPT-5.4 Nano $1.25 against Muse Wonder $20.00 per million output tokens, 16.0x apart.
Context window
GPT-5.4 Nano takes 400K 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-5.4 NanoBarsMuse WonderTies
Coding05
Intelligence01
Agentic work04
Reasoning04
Math03
Knowledge04
General015
All shared boards036
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index05
Coding benchmarks for GPT-5.4 Nano and Muse Wonder
BenchmarkGPT-5.4 NanoMuse WonderLeader
LMArena WebDevNot measured1652Only Muse Wonder measured
AA Coding Index56.1Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)84.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)69.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI)Not measured49.5%Only Muse Wonder measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)26.1%83.1%Muse Wonder
Code migration (Vals AI)14.5%62.5%Muse Wonder
IOI (Vals AI)Not measured66.9%Only Muse Wonder measured
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI)41.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano 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
SciCode47.2%60.3%Muse Wonder
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)42.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
WeirdML49.2%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
ALE-Bench1004.5Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
LMArena Text: coding14041522Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: software and IT14021515Muse Wonder
LMArena WebDev: ReactNot measured1641Only Muse Wonder measured
LMArena WebDev: HTMLNot measured1694Only Muse Wonder measured
Neither model has a result on the other 23 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for GPT-5.4 Nano and Muse Wonder
BenchmarkGPT-5.4 NanoMuse WonderLeader
AA Intelligence Index20.7Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
Epoch Capabilities Index146.0161.8Muse Wonder
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index04
Agentic work benchmarks for GPT-5.4 Nano and Muse Wonder
BenchmarkGPT-5.4 NanoMuse WonderLeader
AA Agentic Index16.0Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
Design Arena: spreadsheetsNot measured1258Only Muse Wonder measured
Finance Agent (Vals AI)38.2%56.6%Muse Wonder
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)5.0%36.3%Muse Wonder
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)6.3%50.5%Muse Wonder
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark (Vals AI)Not measured23.8%Only Muse Wonder measured
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)44.8%67.1%Muse Wonder
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 Telecom76.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
Vending-Bench 2Not measured$9,432Only Muse Wonder measured
Neither model has a result on the other 29 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index04
Reasoning benchmarks for GPT-5.4 Nano and Muse Wonder
BenchmarkGPT-5.4 NanoMuse WonderLeader
GPQA Diamond77.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
MysteryMechanism (Vals AI)Not measured27.5%Only Muse Wonder measured
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)73.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)81.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)28.3%50.1%Muse Wonder
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)78.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
ARC-AGI51.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
ARC-AGI-25.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
Chess puzzles45.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
Mystery game puzzles9.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts13811506Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: expert13961513Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English13871506Muse Wonder
LMArena Vision: diagrams1210Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
LMArena Vision: homework1225Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
Kagi LLM Benchmark39.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index03
Math benchmarks for GPT-5.4 Nano and Muse Wonder
BenchmarkGPT-5.4 NanoMuse WonderLeader
AIME88.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
OTIS Mock AIME87.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 344.9%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
FrontierMath, tier 412.2%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
ProofBench5.0%84.0%Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: math14051486Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: mathematical work14091514Muse Wonder
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index04
Knowledge benchmarks for GPT-5.4 Nano and Muse Wonder
BenchmarkGPT-5.4 NanoMuse WonderLeader
MMLU Pro77.2%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)77.9%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
CaseLaw (Vals AI)51.9%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)61.2%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)67.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
MortgageTax (Vals AI)59.1%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
MedCode (Vals AI)41.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
SimpleQA Verified11.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
LMArena Text: science13741506Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare13691512Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: legal and government13681505Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: business and finance13661483Muse Wonder
Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for GPT-5.4 Nano and Muse Wonder
BenchmarkGPT-5.4 NanoMuse WonderLeader
Design Arena: websitesNot measured1363Only Muse Wonder measured
Design Arena: UI componentsNot measured1380Only Muse Wonder measured
Design Arena: game devNot measured1379Only Muse Wonder measured
Design Arena: data vizNot measured1312Only Muse Wonder measured
Design Arena: 3DNot measured1428Only Muse Wonder measured
Design Arena: all code categoriesNot measured1372Only 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
General benchmarks for GPT-5.4 Nano and Muse Wonder
BenchmarkGPT-5.4 NanoMuse WonderLeader
Vals IndexNot measured64.9%Only Muse Wonder measured
Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI)Not measured70.2%Only Muse Wonder measured
SAGE (Vals AI)38.1%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)77.1%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
Vals Multimodal Index47.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
IFBench75.9%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)76.7%80.7%Muse Wonder
DTBench80.3%95.2%Muse Wonder
LMCA36.9%56.8%Muse Wonder
LMArena Text13721502Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: instruction following13621491Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: creative writing13151491Muse Wonder
LMArena Vision1196Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
LMArena Text: English13811507Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: non-English13591492Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: Chinese13911537Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: German1368Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
LMArena Text: Japanese1343Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
LMArena Text: Korean1321Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
LMArena Text: French13951523Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: Spanish1371Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
LMArena Text: Russian13631522Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: Polish1366Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn13821510Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: longer queries13651493Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: writing and language13381496Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: entertainment and media13251482Muse Wonder
LMArena Vision: English1202Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
LMArena Vision: Chinese1232Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
LMArena Vision: reading text1204Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
LMArena Vision: humor1161Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
LMArena Vision: recognizing things1141Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
LMArena Vision: creative writing1159Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for GPT-5.4 Nano and Muse Wonder
BenchmarkGPT-5.4 NanoMuse 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-5.4 Nano$0.0008Fits in one request
Muse Wonder$0.014Fits in one request

GPT-5.4 Nano costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GPT-5.4 Nano$0.014Fits in one request
Muse Wonder$0.260Fits in one request

GPT-5.4 Nano costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GPT-5.4 Nano$0.052Fits in one request
Muse Wonder$1.00Fits in one request

GPT-5.4 Nano 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-5.4 Nano and Muse Wonder
SpecificationOpenAI GPT-5.4 NanoMeta Muse Wonder
MakerOpenAIMeta
WeightsNo public weights listedNo public weights listed
ReleasedMarch 17, 2026October 12, 2026
Context window400K1.05M
Input $/Mtok$0.20$4.00
Output $/Mtok$1.25$20.00
Coding index44.871.9
Independent measurements behind it23
Cost per solved task$0.14Not computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GPT-5.4 Nano better than Muse Wonder for coding?

Pick Muse Wonder for coding: it scores 71.9 on the Vibe Coding Index against 44.8 for GPT-5.4 Nano. Pick GPT-5.4 Nano for output tokens 16.0x cheaper ($1.25 vs $20.00 per million).

Which is cheaper, GPT-5.4 Nano or Muse Wonder?

GPT-5.4 Nano costs $0.20 per million input tokens and $1.25 per million output tokens; Muse Wonder costs $4.00 and $20.00. Cost per solved task is known for GPT-5.4 Nano only.

Which has the bigger context window, GPT-5.4 Nano or Muse Wonder?

Muse Wonder, with 1.05M tokens against 400K.

How many benchmarks is the GPT-5.4 Nano vs Muse Wonder comparison based on?

36 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. GPT-5.4 Nano's coding index rests on 2 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

Embed this comparison on your site

Free under CC BY 4.0, while the source link stays visible. Preview the frame · Terms and other embeds

<iframe src="https://llmbenchmark.ai/embed/compare/gpt-5-4-nano-vs-meta-muse-wonder" title="GPT-5.4 Nano vs Muse Wonder, LLMBenchmark.ai" width="100%" height="360" style="border:0;max-width:100%" loading="lazy"></iframe>
<p style="font:13px/1.4 sans-serif;margin:6px 0 0">Source: <a href="https://llmbenchmark.ai/compare/gpt-5-4-nano-vs-meta-muse-wonder">LLMBenchmark.ai, GPT-5.4 Nano vs Muse Wonder</a></p>