Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Muse Wonder vs Qwen2.5 72B Instruct

Qwen2.5 72B Instruct costs 50.0x less per output token than Muse Wonder ($0.40 vs $20.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 27 benchmarks have a result for both.

Replace Muse Wonder Replace Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
Muse WonderMeta
Coding
71.9
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$20.00
27
Qwen2.5 72B InstructQwen
Coding
No data
Overall
26.5
Output $/M
$0.40
0
vs boards won of 27 shared

Muse Wonder or Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: which to pick

Only Muse Wonder has a coding score, 71.9 on the Vibe Coding Index; Qwen2.5 72B Instruct has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Qwen2.5 72B Instruct for output tokens 50.0x cheaper ($0.40 vs $20.00 per million).

Model AMuse WonderMeta71.9/1003 independent benchmarksNo cost per solved taskModel BQwen2.5 72B InstructQwenNot benchmarkedNo coding benchmarkNo cost per solved task
Shared results
27
Muse Wonder only
33
Qwen2.5 72B Instruct only
26
Like-for-like categories
6 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, Qwen2.5 72B Instruct not benchmarked.
Widest category
Reasoning, 42.0 points apart on average over 4 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run): Muse Wonder 50.1% against Qwen2.5 72B Instruct 3.6%, 46.5 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Muse Wonder $20.00 against Qwen2.5 72B Instruct $0.40 per million output tokens, 50.0x apart.
Context window
Muse Wonder takes 1.05M tokens, Qwen2.5 72B Instruct 33K.

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 WonderBarsQwen2.5 72B InstructTies
Coding20
Intelligence10
Reasoning40
Math20
Knowledge40
General140
All shared boards270
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index20
Coding benchmarks for Muse Wonder and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
BenchmarkMuse WonderQwen2.5 72B InstructLeader
LMArena WebDev1652Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder 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 measured27.6%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
SciCode60.3%Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured4.5%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
WeirdMLNot measured16.0%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: coding15221292Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: software and IT15151292Muse Wonder
LMArena WebDev: React1641Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
LMArena WebDev: HTML1694Not measuredOnly 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 index10
Intelligence benchmarks for Muse Wonder and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
BenchmarkMuse WonderQwen2.5 72B InstructLeader
AA Intelligence IndexNot measured7.7Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
Epoch Capabilities Index161.8129.0Muse Wonder
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index15 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for Muse Wonder and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
BenchmarkMuse WonderQwen2.5 72B InstructLeader
Design Arena: spreadsheets1243Not 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 measured34.5%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
METR time horizonsNot measured35.8%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
BALROGNot measured16.2%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
TheAgentCompanyNot measured5.7%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
Vending-Bench 2$9,432Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
Neither model has a result on the other 26 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index40
Reasoning benchmarks for Muse Wonder and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
BenchmarkMuse WonderQwen2.5 72B InstructLeader
MysteryMechanism (Vals AI)27.5%Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured49.1%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)50.1%3.6%Muse Wonder
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)Not measured49.1%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
BIG-Bench HardNot measured79.8%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts15061271Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: expert15131245Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English15061279Muse Wonder
Neither model has a result on the other 14 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Math benchmarks for Muse Wonder and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
BenchmarkMuse WonderQwen2.5 72B InstructLeader
AA Math IndexNot measured14.0Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured14.0%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
OTIS Mock AIMENot measured8.1%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
ProofBench84.0%Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
MATH level 5Not measured63.2%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: math14861283Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: mathematical work15141290Muse Wonder
Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index40
Knowledge benchmarks for Muse Wonder and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
BenchmarkMuse WonderQwen2.5 72B InstructLeader
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured72.0%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
MMLUNot measured85.3%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
AI2 Reasoning ChallengeNot measured94.5%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: science15061275Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare15121258Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: legal and government15051288Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: business and finance14831253Muse Wonder
Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Muse Wonder and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
BenchmarkMuse WonderQwen2.5 72B InstructLeader
Design Arena: websites1362Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
Design Arena: UI components1379Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
Design Arena: game dev1376Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
Design Arena: data viz1317Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
Design Arena: 3D1427Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
Design Arena: all code categories1371Not measuredOnly 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 index140
General benchmarks for Muse Wonder and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
BenchmarkMuse WonderQwen2.5 72B InstructLeader
Vals Index64.9%Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI)70.2%Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
IFBenchNot measured36.9%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)80.7%Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
DTBench95.2%62.9%Muse Wonder
LMCA56.8%13.4%Muse Wonder
HellaSwagNot measured84.8%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
WinoGrandeNot measured82.3%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
PIQANot measured82.6%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Text15021269Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: instruction following14911254Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: creative writing14911221Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: English15071283Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: non-English14921252Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: Chinese15371273Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: GermanNot measured1234Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: JapaneseNot measured1180Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: KoreanNot measured1188Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: French15231280Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: SpanishNot measured1255Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: Russian15221264Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: multi-turn15101272Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: longer queries14931281Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: writing and language14961247Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: entertainment and media14821211Muse Wonder
Neither model has a result on the other 21 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Muse Wonder and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
BenchmarkMuse WonderQwen2.5 72B InstructLeader
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
Qwen2.5 72B Instruct$0.0006Fits in one request

Qwen2.5 72B Instruct costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Muse Wonder$0.260Fits in one request
Qwen2.5 72B Instruct$0.019Exceeds the context window

Qwen2.5 72B Instruct costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Muse Wonder$1.00Fits in one request
Qwen2.5 72B Instruct$0.076Exceeds the context window

Qwen2.5 72B Instruct 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 Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
SpecificationMeta Muse WonderQwen2.5 72B Instruct
MakerMetaQwen
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedOctober 12, 2026September 19, 2024
Context window1.05M33K
Input $/Mtok$4.00$0.36
Output $/Mtok$20.00$0.40
Coding index71.9Not benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it30
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Muse Wonder better than Qwen2.5 72B Instruct for coding?

Only Muse Wonder has a coding score, 71.9 on the Vibe Coding Index; Qwen2.5 72B Instruct has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Qwen2.5 72B Instruct for output tokens 50.0x cheaper ($0.40 vs $20.00 per million).

Which is cheaper, Muse Wonder or Qwen2.5 72B Instruct?

Muse Wonder costs $4.00 per million input tokens and $20.00 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5 72B Instruct costs $0.36 and $0.40. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Muse Wonder or Qwen2.5 72B Instruct?

Muse Wonder, with 1.05M tokens against 33K.

How many benchmarks is the Muse Wonder vs Qwen2.5 72B Instruct comparison based on?

27 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Muse Wonder's coding index rests on 3 independent benchmarks and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next