Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GPT-5 Nano vs Muse Wonder

GPT-5 Nano costs 50.0x less per output token than Muse Wonder ($0.40 vs $20.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 34 benchmarks have a result for both.

GPT-5 NanoOpenAI
Coding
No data
Overall
35.6
Output $/M
$0.40
0
Muse WonderMeta
Coding
71.9
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$20.00
34
vs boards won of 34 shared

GPT-5 Nano or Muse Wonder: which to pick

Only Muse Wonder has a coding score, 71.9 on the Vibe Coding Index; GPT-5 Nano has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick GPT-5 Nano for output tokens 50.0x cheaper ($0.40 vs $20.00 per million).

Shared results
34
GPT-5 Nano only
53
Muse Wonder only
26
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 Nano not benchmarked, Muse Wonder 71.9 from 3 benchmarks.
Widest category
Math, 43.8 points apart on average over 3 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
ProofBench: GPT-5 Nano 12.0% against Muse Wonder 84.0%, 72.0 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GPT-5 Nano $0.40 against Muse Wonder $20.00 per million output tokens, 50.0x apart.
Context window
GPT-5 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 NanoBarsMuse WonderTies
Coding02
Intelligence01
Reasoning04
Math03
Knowledge04
Web design06
General014
All shared boards034
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index02
Coding benchmarks for GPT-5 Nano and Muse Wonder
BenchmarkGPT-5 NanoMuse WonderLeader
SWE-bench Verified34.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
LMArena WebDevNot measured1652Only Muse Wonder measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)70.2%Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano 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)78.9%Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
SciCodeNot measured60.3%Only Muse Wonder measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)17.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
Terminal-Bench21.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
WeirdML38.1%Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
LMArena Text: coding13511522Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: software and IT13451515Muse Wonder
LMArena WebDev: ReactNot measured1641Only Muse Wonder measured
LMArena WebDev: HTMLNot measured1694Only Muse Wonder measured
Neither model has a result on the other 20 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for GPT-5 Nano and Muse Wonder
BenchmarkGPT-5 NanoMuse WonderLeader
AA Intelligence Index13.0Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
Epoch Capabilities Index139.2161.8Muse Wonder
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index13 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for GPT-5 Nano and Muse Wonder
BenchmarkGPT-5 NanoMuse 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
τ²-Bench Telecom36.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
Vending-Bench 2Not measured$9,432Only Muse Wonder measured
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)51.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
Neither model has a result on the other 28 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index04
Reasoning benchmarks for GPT-5 Nano and Muse Wonder
BenchmarkGPT-5 NanoMuse WonderLeader
GPQA Diamond63.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
MysteryMechanism (Vals AI)Not measured27.5%Only Muse Wonder measured
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)70.9%Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)67.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)9.5%50.1%Muse Wonder
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)69.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
ARC-AGI20.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
ARC-AGI-22.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
Chess puzzles22.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
Mystery game puzzles9.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
VPCT37.2%Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts13281506Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: expert13211513Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English13381506Muse Wonder
LMArena Vision: diagrams1141Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
LMArena Vision: homework1157Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
Kagi LLM Benchmark62.2%Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index03
Math benchmarks for GPT-5 Nano and Muse Wonder
BenchmarkGPT-5 NanoMuse WonderLeader
AIME81.2%Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
MATH 500 (Vals AI)93.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
MGSM (Vals AI)89.3%Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
AA Math Index83.7Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)83.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
OTIS Mock AIME81.1%Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 320.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
FrontierMath, tier 42.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
ProofBench12.0%84.0%Muse Wonder
MATH level 595.2%Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
LMArena Text: math13171486Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: mathematical work13261514Muse Wonder
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index04
Knowledge benchmarks for GPT-5 Nano and Muse Wonder
BenchmarkGPT-5 NanoMuse WonderLeader
MMLU Pro76.1%Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)50.1%Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
CaseLaw (Vals AI)52.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)67.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
MortgageTax (Vals AI)53.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
MedQA (Vals AI)93.3%Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
MedCode (Vals AI)30.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)78.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
SimpleQA Verified11.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
LMArena Text: science13181506Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare13351512Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: legal and government12981505Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: business and finance13111483Muse Wonder
Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index06
Web design benchmarks for GPT-5 Nano and Muse Wonder
BenchmarkGPT-5 NanoMuse WonderLeader
Design Arena: websites11011363Muse Wonder
Design Arena: UI components10641380Muse Wonder
Design Arena: game dev10441378Muse Wonder
Design Arena: data viz10561312Muse Wonder
Design Arena: 3D9651428Muse Wonder
Design Arena: all code categories10841371Muse Wonder
Neither model has a result on the other 3 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index014
General benchmarks for GPT-5 Nano and Muse Wonder
BenchmarkGPT-5 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)30.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)72.9%Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
IFBench67.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)45.0%80.7%Muse Wonder
DTBench62.7%95.2%Muse Wonder
LMCA7.9%56.8%Muse Wonder
Fiction.LiveBench44.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
LMArena Text13201502Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: instruction following13061491Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: creative writing12491491Muse Wonder
LMArena Vision1159Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
LMArena Text: English13211507Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: non-English13131492Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: Chinese13561537Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: German1327Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
LMArena Text: Japanese1227Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
LMArena Text: Korean1269Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
LMArena Text: FrenchNot measured1523Only Muse Wonder measured
LMArena Text: Spanish1360Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
LMArena Text: Russian12961522Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: Polish1314Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn13111510Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: longer queries13121493Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: writing and language12831496Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: entertainment and media12681482Muse Wonder
LMArena Vision: English1170Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
LMArena Vision: Chinese1176Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
LMArena Vision: reading text1152Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
LMArena Vision: humor1110Not measuredOnly GPT-5 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 Nano and Muse Wonder
BenchmarkGPT-5 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 Nano$0.0003Fits in one request
Muse Wonder$0.014Fits in one request

GPT-5 Nano costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GPT-5 Nano$0.0037Fits in one request
Muse Wonder$0.260Fits in one request

GPT-5 Nano costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GPT-5 Nano$0.014Fits in one request
Muse Wonder$1.00Fits in one request

GPT-5 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 Nano and Muse Wonder
SpecificationOpenAI GPT-5 NanoMeta Muse Wonder
MakerOpenAIMeta
WeightsNo public weights listedNo public weights listed
ReleasedAugust 7, 2025October 12, 2026
Context window400K1.05M
Input $/Mtok$0.05$4.00
Output $/Mtok$0.40$20.00
Coding indexNot benchmarked71.9
Independent measurements behind it03
Cost per solved task$0.109Not computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GPT-5 Nano better than Muse Wonder for coding?

Only Muse Wonder has a coding score, 71.9 on the Vibe Coding Index; GPT-5 Nano has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick GPT-5 Nano for output tokens 50.0x cheaper ($0.40 vs $20.00 per million).

Which is cheaper, GPT-5 Nano or Muse Wonder?

GPT-5 Nano costs $0.05 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Muse Wonder costs $4.00 and $20.00. Cost per solved task is known for GPT-5 Nano only.

Which has the bigger context window, GPT-5 Nano or Muse Wonder?

Muse Wonder, with 1.05M tokens against 400K.

How many benchmarks is the GPT-5 Nano vs Muse Wonder comparison based on?

34 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. GPT-5 Nano'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