Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Muse Wonder vs MiniMax M2.1

MiniMax M2.1 costs 16.7x less per output token than Muse Wonder ($1.20 vs $20.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 8 benchmarks have a result for both.

Muse WonderMeta
Coding
71.9
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$20.00
8
MiniMax M2.1MiniMax
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$1.20
0
vs boards won of 8 shared

Muse Wonder or MiniMax M2.1: which to pick

Only Muse Wonder has a coding score, 71.9 on the Vibe Coding Index; MiniMax M2.1 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick MiniMax M2.1 for output tokens 16.7x cheaper ($1.20 vs $20.00 per million).

Shared results
8
Muse Wonder only
52
MiniMax M2.1 only
26
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
Muse Wonder 71.9 from 3 benchmarks, MiniMax M2.1 not benchmarked.
Widest category
Reasoning, 26.9 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
Design Arena: 3D: Muse Wonder 1428 against MiniMax M2.1 1164, 33.0 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Muse Wonder $20.00 against MiniMax M2.1 $1.20 per million output tokens, 16.7x apart.
Context window
Muse Wonder takes 1.05M tokens, MiniMax M2.1 205K.

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
CategoryMuse WonderBarsMiniMax M2.1Ties
Reasoning10
Web design60
General10
All shared boards80
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index19 boards, none shared
Coding benchmarks for Muse Wonder and MiniMax M2.1
BenchmarkMuse WonderMiniMax M2.1Leader
LMArena WebDev1652Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)Not measured81.8%Only MiniMax M2.1 measured
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)Not measured74.8%Only MiniMax M2.1 measured
Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI)49.5%Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)83.1%Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
Code migration (Vals AI)62.5%Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
IOI (Vals AI)66.9%Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
SWE-bench Multimodal (Vals AI)45.6%Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
Vibe Code Bench 1-100 (Vals AI)26.6%Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
CyberBench (Vals AI)80.4%Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured81.0%Only MiniMax M2.1 measured
SciCode60.3%Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured28.8%Only MiniMax M2.1 measured
Terminal-BenchNot measured36.6%Only MiniMax M2.1 measured
ALE-BenchNot measured623.8Only MiniMax M2.1 measured
LMArena Text: coding1522Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
LMArena Text: software and IT1515Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
LMArena WebDev: React1641Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
LMArena WebDev: HTML1694Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
Neither model has a result on the other 24 boards here
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
Intelligence benchmarks for Muse Wonder and MiniMax M2.1
BenchmarkMuse WonderMiniMax M2.1Leader
AA Intelligence IndexNot measured20.9Only MiniMax M2.1 measured
Epoch Capabilities Index161.8Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index12 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for Muse Wonder and MiniMax M2.1
BenchmarkMuse WonderMiniMax M2.1Leader
Design Arena: spreadsheets1258Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
Finance Agent (Vals AI)56.6%Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)36.3%Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)50.5%Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark (Vals AI)23.8%Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)67.1%Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
BioMysteryBench (Vals AI)67.0%Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
Terminal-Bench-Science (Vals AI)22.9%Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
Vals Science Index39.1%Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
CUA-bench (Vals AI)7.2%Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
τ²-Bench TelecomNot measured85.4%Only MiniMax M2.1 measured
Vending-Bench 2$9,432Not measuredOnly 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 index10
Reasoning benchmarks for Muse Wonder and MiniMax M2.1
BenchmarkMuse WonderMiniMax M2.1Leader
GPQA DiamondNot measured78.5%Only MiniMax M2.1 measured
MysteryMechanism (Vals AI)27.5%Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured83.0%Only MiniMax M2.1 measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)50.1%23.2%Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: hard prompts1506Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
LMArena Text: expert1513Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English1506Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
Neither model has a result on the other 16 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for Muse Wonder and MiniMax M2.1
BenchmarkMuse WonderMiniMax M2.1Leader
AIMENot measured77.9%Only MiniMax M2.1 measured
MATH 500 (Vals AI)Not measured89.0%Only MiniMax M2.1 measured
MGSM (Vals AI)Not measured87.8%Only MiniMax M2.1 measured
AA Math IndexNot measured82.7Only MiniMax M2.1 measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured82.7%Only MiniMax M2.1 measured
ProofBench84.0%Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
LMArena Text: math1486Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
LMArena Text: mathematical work1514Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index12 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for Muse Wonder and MiniMax M2.1
BenchmarkMuse WonderMiniMax M2.1Leader
MMLU ProNot measured87.0%Only MiniMax M2.1 measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)Not measured75.5%Only MiniMax M2.1 measured
CaseLaw (Vals AI)Not measured55.8%Only MiniMax M2.1 measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)Not measured58.9%Only MiniMax M2.1 measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)Not measured66.3%Only MiniMax M2.1 measured
MedQA (Vals AI)Not measured91.2%Only MiniMax M2.1 measured
MedCode (Vals AI)Not measured34.1%Only MiniMax M2.1 measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured87.5%Only MiniMax M2.1 measured
LMArena Text: science1506Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare1512Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
LMArena Text: legal and government1505Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
LMArena Text: business and finance1483Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index60
Web design benchmarks for Muse Wonder and MiniMax M2.1
BenchmarkMuse WonderMiniMax M2.1Leader
Design Arena: websites13631201Muse Wonder
Design Arena: UI components13801220Muse Wonder
Design Arena: game dev13791134Muse Wonder
Design Arena: data viz13121206Muse Wonder
Design Arena: 3D14281164Muse Wonder
Design Arena: all code categories13721190Muse Wonder
Design Arena: SVGNot measured1131Only MiniMax M2.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 2 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
General benchmarks for Muse Wonder and MiniMax M2.1
BenchmarkMuse WonderMiniMax M2.1Leader
Vals Index64.9%Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI)70.2%Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)Not measured80.8%Only MiniMax M2.1 measured
IFBenchNot measured69.9%Only MiniMax M2.1 measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)80.7%67.7%Muse Wonder
DTBench95.2%Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
LMCA56.8%Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
LMArena Text1502Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
LMArena Text: instruction following1491Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
LMArena Text: creative writing1491Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
LMArena Text: English1507Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
LMArena Text: non-English1492Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
LMArena Text: Chinese1537Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
LMArena Text: French1523Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
LMArena Text: Russian1522Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn1510Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
LMArena Text: longer queries1493Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
LMArena Text: writing and language1496Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and media1482Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
Neither model has a result on the other 29 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Muse Wonder and MiniMax M2.1
BenchmarkMuse WonderMiniMax M2.1Leader
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

Muse Wonder$0.014Fits in one request
MiniMax M2.1$0.0009Fits in one request

MiniMax M2.1 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Muse Wonder$0.260Fits in one request
MiniMax M2.1$0.019Fits in one request

MiniMax M2.1 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Muse Wonder$1.00Fits in one request
MiniMax M2.1$0.072Exceeds the context window

MiniMax M2.1 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 Muse Wonder and MiniMax M2.1
SpecificationMeta Muse WonderMiniMax M2.1
MakerMetaMiniMax
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedOctober 12, 2026December 23, 2025
Context window1.05M205K
Input $/Mtok$4.00$0.30
Output $/Mtok$20.00$1.20
Coding index71.9Not benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it31
Cost per solved taskNot computable$0.59
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Muse Wonder better than MiniMax M2.1 for coding?

Only Muse Wonder has a coding score, 71.9 on the Vibe Coding Index; MiniMax M2.1 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick MiniMax M2.1 for output tokens 16.7x cheaper ($1.20 vs $20.00 per million).

Which is cheaper, Muse Wonder or MiniMax M2.1?

Muse Wonder costs $4.00 per million input tokens and $20.00 per million output tokens; MiniMax M2.1 costs $0.30 and $1.20. Cost per solved task is known for MiniMax M2.1 only.

Which has the bigger context window, Muse Wonder or MiniMax M2.1?

Muse Wonder, with 1.05M tokens against 205K.

How many benchmarks is the Muse Wonder vs MiniMax M2.1 comparison based on?

8 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Muse Wonder's coding index rests on 3 independent benchmarks and MiniMax M2.1's on 1. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next