Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Muse Wonder vs Step 3.5 Flash

Updated October 21, 2026. 25 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

Muse WonderMeta
Coding
71.9
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$20.00
25
Step 3.5 FlashStepFun
Coding
No data
Overall
17.0
Output $/M
$0.30
0
vs boards won of 25 shared

Decision reading

Only Muse Wonder has a coding score, 71.9 on the Vibe Coding Index; Step 3.5 Flash has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Step 3.5 Flash has the edge where output tokens cost 66.7x less.

Shared results
25
Muse Wonder only
35
Step 3.5 Flash only
10
Like-for-like categories
5 of 9

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results only one model has describe coverage, not superiority.

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, Step 3.5 Flash not benchmarked.
Widest category
General, 18.1 points apart on average over 13 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run): Muse Wonder 50.1% against Step 3.5 Flash 24.5%, 25.6 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Muse Wonder $20.00 against Step 3.5 Flash $0.30 per million output tokens, 66.7x apart.
Context window
Muse Wonder takes 1.05M tokens, Step 3.5 Flash 262K.

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 WonderBarsStep 3.5 FlashTies
Coding20
Reasoning40
Math20
Knowledge40
General130
All shared boards250
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index20
Coding benchmarks for Muse Wonder and Step 3.5 Flash
BenchmarkMuse WonderStep 3.5 FlashLeader
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
SciCode60.3%Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured32.6%Only Step 3.5 Flash measured
LMArena Text: coding15221436Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: software and IT15151434Muse Wonder
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 Step 3.5 Flash
BenchmarkMuse WonderStep 3.5 FlashLeader
AA Intelligence IndexNot measured17.0Only Step 3.5 Flash 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 Step 3.5 Flash
BenchmarkMuse WonderStep 3.5 FlashLeader
Design Arena: spreadsheets1232Not 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 measured94.4%Only Step 3.5 Flash measured
Vending-Bench 2$9,432Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
Neither model has a result on the other 27 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index40
Reasoning benchmarks for Muse Wonder and Step 3.5 Flash
BenchmarkMuse WonderStep 3.5 FlashLeader
MysteryMechanism (Vals AI)27.5%Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured83.1%Only Step 3.5 Flash measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)50.1%24.5%Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: hard prompts15061411Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: expert15131421Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English15061421Muse Wonder
Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Math benchmarks for Muse Wonder and Step 3.5 Flash
BenchmarkMuse WonderStep 3.5 FlashLeader
ProofBench84.0%Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
LMArena Text: math14861408Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: mathematical work15141421Muse Wonder
Neither model has a result on the other 10 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index40
Knowledge benchmarks for Muse Wonder and Step 3.5 Flash
BenchmarkMuse WonderStep 3.5 FlashLeader
LMArena Text: science15061415Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare15121408Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: legal and government15051408Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: business and finance14831394Muse Wonder
Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Muse Wonder and Step 3.5 Flash
BenchmarkMuse WonderStep 3.5 FlashLeader
Design Arena: websites1361Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
Design Arena: UI components1374Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
Design Arena: game dev1379Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
Design Arena: data viz1321Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
Design Arena: 3D1425Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
Design Arena: all code categories1370Not 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 index130
General benchmarks for Muse Wonder and Step 3.5 Flash
BenchmarkMuse WonderStep 3.5 FlashLeader
Vals Index64.9%Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI)70.2%Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
IFBenchNot measured66.5%Only Step 3.5 Flash measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)80.7%63.0%Muse Wonder
DTBench95.2%Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
LMCA56.8%Not measuredOnly Muse Wonder measured
LMArena Text15021403Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: instruction following14911385Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: creative writing14911357Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: English15071417Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: non-English14921385Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: Chinese15371446Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: GermanNot measured1405Only Step 3.5 Flash measured
LMArena Text: JapaneseNot measured1353Only Step 3.5 Flash measured
LMArena Text: KoreanNot measured1351Only Step 3.5 Flash measured
LMArena Text: French15231421Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: SpanishNot measured1419Only Step 3.5 Flash measured
LMArena Text: Russian15221385Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: PolishNot measured1389Only Step 3.5 Flash measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn15101404Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: longer queries14931402Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: writing and language14961372Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: entertainment and media14821360Muse Wonder
Neither model has a result on the other 23 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Muse Wonder and Step 3.5 Flash
BenchmarkMuse WonderStep 3.5 FlashLeader
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
Step 3.5 Flash$0.0003Fits in one request

Step 3.5 Flash costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Muse Wonder$0.260Fits in one request
Step 3.5 Flash$0.0059Fits in one request

Step 3.5 Flash costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Muse Wonder$1.00Fits in one request
Step 3.5 Flash$0.023Fits in one request

Step 3.5 Flash 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 Step 3.5 Flash
SpecificationMeta Muse WonderStepFun Step 3.5 Flash
MakerMetaStepFun
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedOctober 12, 2026January 29, 2026
Context window1.05M262K
Input $/Mtok$4.00$0.10
Output $/Mtok$20.00$0.30
Coding index71.9Not benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it30
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Muse Wonder better than Step 3.5 Flash for coding?

Only Muse Wonder has a coding score, 71.9 on the Vibe Coding Index; Step 3.5 Flash has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Step 3.5 Flash has the edge where output tokens cost 66.7x less.

Which is cheaper, Muse Wonder or Step 3.5 Flash?

Muse Wonder costs $4.00 per million input tokens and $20.00 per million output tokens; Step 3.5 Flash costs $0.10 and $0.30. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Muse Wonder or Step 3.5 Flash?

Muse Wonder, with 1.05M tokens against 262K.

How many benchmarks is the Muse Wonder vs Step 3.5 Flash comparison based on?

25 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Muse Wonder's coding index rests on 3 independent benchmarks and Step 3.5 Flash's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next