Compare / DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash vs Muse Wonder
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash vs Muse Wonder
Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 38 results on 2 sources that measured both models.
Of the 38 results both models have, the better value on each. Results whose reported ranges overlap are too close to call.
Results as of 14 October 2026 (catalogue release 2026-10-14-7d7cf32c3f6d). See also DeepSeek vs Meta, every model from both labs.
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash or Muse Wonder? The short answer
Pick Muse Wonder if quality matters most: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 71 against 53). Pick DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash if cost matters more: it costs 5.9 times less per product listing on CatalogBench. DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash is also faster.
- Spring Prompt overall: DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash 53, Muse Wonder 71 (out of 100; how the score works).
- DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash is cheaper to run: $0.006 against $0.036 per product listing on CatalogBench (5.9 times less).
- Muse Wonder scores higher on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index: 52.4 against 39.5.
- DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash writes faster: 184 tokens a second against 117.
- Muse Wonder is newer: released 12 Oct 2026, against 10 Sep 2026 for DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash.
- On our own benchmarks, on the results both models have: Muse Wonder does better for product listings.
- On third-party benchmarks, on the results both models have: Muse Wonder does better for agents and tool use and reasoning and knowledge.
Head to head
Every fact side by side
| DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash | Muse Wonder | |
|---|---|---|
| Price per million tokens | $0.30 in · $1.20 out | $4.00 in · $20.00 out |
| Blended (3 in : 1 out) | $0.52 | $8.00 |
| Cheapest host, blended | $0.11 (Decart, FP4) | – |
| Cost per product listing (CatalogBench) | $0.006 | $0.036 |
| Cached input, per million | $0.006 cached input | $0.20 cached input |
| Intelligence Index | 39.5 | 52.4 |
| Spring Prompt overall | 53 | 71 |
| Output speed, tokens a second | 184 | 117 |
| Context window | 1,048,576 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens |
| Released | 10 Sep 2026 | 12 Oct 2026 (newer) |
| Weights | Open | Closed |
| Developer based in | China | the US |
Prices are the developer's list price where we have read it, otherwise the typical host on OpenRouter; see every model's price. Intelligence and speed from Artificial Analysis.
Which is better for what
Each model's rank among the models on sale today, for each kind of work, from our own benchmarks and licensed sources. Further right is better; the better rank is in green.
From our research
- We Told 11 AI Models What Happened in 2026. Most of Them Thought We Were Making It Up. 12 Oct 2026
- Claude Haiku 5.5 Is Far Better Than Haiku 4.5 at a Tenth of the Price. GPT-6 Luna Still Beats It at Business Work. 8 Oct 2026
- Mistral Large 4 Is Fast, Cheap and Europe's Best Model. On Business Work, It Still Makes Things Up. 7 Oct 2026
- Claude Opus 5.5 vs Muse Wonder Full: Eight Crafts, and Opus Still Wins Most 13 Oct 2026
Every shared result
Each model's best result on every measure both have, grouped by benchmark, with the setting that produced it. Under each measure, every model that benchmark has measured is a grey tick, best to the right, so you can see where the two sit in the field. The headline measures of each benchmark come first; the rest are under "Show all". Green marks the better value; where a source reports ranges that overlap, neither is marked.
| Measure | DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash | Muse Wonder |
|---|---|---|
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per productUS dollars, lower is better 5 · 18 of 22 measured | $0.0061 | $0.0361 |
| Reliably publish-ready% of products, higher is better 11 · 3 of 22 measured | 41.1% | 66.1% |
| Reliably publish-ready · sales brief% of products, higher is better 7 · 4 of 22 measured | 23.2% | 51.8% |
| Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 3 results | ||
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence Indexindex score, higher is better 30 · 6 of 244 measured | 39.5max reasoning | 52.4max reasoning |
| Humanity's Last Exam% of questions, higher is better 45 · 9 of 243 measured | 39.2%max reasoning | 50.1%max reasoning |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0% of tasks, higher is better 19 · 7 of 113 measured | 26.8%max reasoning | 52.0%max reasoning |
Show all 38 results (32 more)
| Measure | DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash | Muse Wonder |
|---|---|---|
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 28 results | ||
| Channel compliance% of products, higher is better 15 · 15 of 22 measured | 99.4% | 99.4% |
| Channel rules broken% of products, lower is better 21 · 12 of 22 measured | 3.0% | 0.6% |
| Channel rules broken · sales brief% of products, lower is better 20 · 1 of 22 measured | 1.8% | 0.0% |
| Claims to check% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 22 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Claims to check · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 22 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Conflicts caught% of conflicts, higher is better 1 · 1 of 22 measured | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| Content quality% of checks, higher is better 13 · 3 of 22 measured | 96.7% | 98.3% |
| Content quality · sales brief% of checks, higher is better 16 · 3 of 22 measured | 96.2% | 98.5% |
| Decision accuracy% of decisions, higher is better 10 · 3 of 22 measured | 96.9% | 98.3% |
| Failed outputs% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 22 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Failed outputs · sales brief% of products, lower is better 19 · 1 of 22 measured | 0.6% | 0.0% |
| Field accuracy% of missing fields, higher is better 5 · 1 of 22 measured | 94.4% | 96.1% |
| Invented values% of filled values, lower is better 18 · 11 of 22 measured | 3.1% | 1.4% |
| Missing UK information% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 22 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Missing UK information · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 22 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Not findable% of products, lower is better 5 · 5 of 22 measured | 3.6% | 3.6% |
| Not findable · sales brief% of products, lower is better 9 · 9 of 22 measured | 3.6% | 3.6% |
| Publish-ready listings% of products, higher is better 10 · 3 of 22 measured | 63.7% | 75.0% |
| Publish-ready listings · sales brief% of products, higher is better 7 · 5 of 22 measured | 47.0% | 67.3% |
| Time per productseconds, lower is better 14 · 8 of 22 measured | 17.6 | 10.2 |
| Unsupported claimsclaims per product, lower is better 10 · 4 of 22 measured | 0.54 | 0.21 |
| Unsupported claims% of products, lower is better 7 · 4 of 22 measured | 13.1% | 7.1% |
| Unsupported claims · sales brief% of products, lower is better 8 · 5 of 22 measured | 39.9% | 17.9% |
| Unsupported claims · sales briefclaims per product, lower is better 7 · 5 of 22 measured | 1.25 | 0.36 |
| Wrong attributes% of products, lower is better 17 · 2 of 22 measured | 20.2% | 13.1% |
| Wrong attributes · sales brief% of products, lower is better 16 · 4 of 22 measured | 20.2% | 14.3% |
| Wrong category or variant% of products, lower is better 14 · 11 of 22 measured | 3.0% | 2.4% |
| Wrong category or variant · sales brief% of products, lower is better 11 · 11 of 22 measured | 2.4% | 2.4% |
| Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 4 results | ||
| Long-context reasoning (AA-LCR)% of questions, higher is better 6 · 33 of 234 measured | 84.0%max reasoning | 80.7%max reasoning |
| Output speedtokens per second, higher is better 14 · 31 of 73 measured | 184max reasoning | 117max reasoning |
| SciCode% of problems, higher is better 39 · 7 of 114 measured | 51.9%max reasoning | 60.3%max reasoning |
| Time to first answer tokenseconds, lower is better 21 · 70 of 73 measured | 0.86no reasoning | 48.5max reasoning |
Compare them with other models
- DeepSeek vs MetaEvery model from both labs, best against best
- DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash vs Claude Haiku 5.5Fastest with similar intelligence
- DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash vs Claude Opus 5.5Most intelligent available today
- Muse Wonder vs Claude Opus 5.5Most intelligent at $3–10 per million tokens
- Muse Wonder vs Claude Sonnet 5.5Cheapest with similar intelligence
- Muse Wonder vs Gemini 4 ArgonJust above overall
- Muse Wonder vs GPT-6 SolJust below overall
Quick answers
Is DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash better than Muse Wonder?
Pick Muse Wonder if quality matters most: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 71 against 53). Pick DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash if cost matters more: it costs 5.9 times less per product listing on CatalogBench. DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash is also faster.
Which is cheaper, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash or Muse Wonder?
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash is cheaper to run: $0.006 against $0.036 per product listing on CatalogBench (5.9 times less).
Which is faster, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash or Muse Wonder?
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash writes about 184 tokens a second on its usual API, against 117 for Muse Wonder (Artificial Analysis).
Which is better for product listings, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash or Muse Wonder?
Muse Wonder ranks 4 of 22 models on sale for turning a sparse product feed and photos into listings that can go live, against 9 for DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash.
Which is better for agents and tool use, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash or Muse Wonder?
Muse Wonder ranks 8 of 166 models on sale for multi-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls, against 27 for DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash.
Which is better for reasoning and knowledge, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash or Muse Wonder?
Muse Wonder ranks 7 of 200 models on sale for hard questions across science, maths and general knowledge, against 37 for DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash.
Run DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash and Muse Wonder on your own prompt
Benchmarks aren't your data. Try both side by side in the playground, with the cost of every answer.