Compare / DeepSeek-V4-Pro (0423) vs Muse Wonder
DeepSeek-V4-Pro (0423) vs Muse Wonder
Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 25 results on 2 sources that measured both models.
Of the 25 results both models have, the better value on each. Results whose reported ranges overlap are too close to call.
Results as of 13 October 2026 (catalogue release 2026-10-13-2e2420e3c5cc). See also DeepSeek vs Meta, every model from both labs.
DeepSeek-V4-Pro (0423) or Muse Wonder? The short answer
Pick Muse Wonder if quality matters most: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 70 against 34). Pick DeepSeek-V4-Pro (0423) if cost matters more: it costs 3.9 times less per deck on DeckBench.
- Spring Prompt overall: DeepSeek-V4-Pro (0423) 34, Muse Wonder 70 (out of 100; how the score works).
- DeepSeek-V4-Pro (0423) is cheaper to run: $0.046 against $0.18 per deck on DeckBench (3.9 times less).
- Muse Wonder is newer: released 12 Oct 2026, against 24 Apr 2026 for DeepSeek-V4-Pro (0423).
- On our own benchmarks, on the results both models have: Muse Wonder does better for decks from an analysis and marketing planning.
Head to head
Every fact side by side
| DeepSeek-V4-Pro (0423) | Muse Wonder | |
|---|---|---|
| Price per million tokens | $1.42 in · $2.83 out | $4.00 in · $20.00 out |
| Blended (3 in : 1 out) | $1.77 | $8.00 |
| Cheapest host, blended | $1.19 (StreamLake, FP8) | – |
| Cost per deck (DeckBench) | $0.046 | $0.18 |
| Cached input, per million | – | $0.20 cached input |
| Intelligence Index | 30.4 | – |
| Spring Prompt overall | 34 | 70 |
| Output speed, tokens a second | – | – |
| Context window | 1,048,576 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens |
| Released | 24 Apr 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
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-Pro (0423) | Muse Wonder |
|---|---|---|
| DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per deckUS dollars, lower is better 8 · 14 of 20 measured | $0.0465 | $0.18 |
| Deck ratingrating, higher is betterThe rating weighs each win by how strong the other deck was; the win rate counts wins against whichever decks a model happened to meet, so the two can disagree. 17 · 8 of 20 measured | 690 | 1,273 |
| Accurate decks% of tasks, higher is better 17 · 1 of 20 measured | 0.0% | 100.0% |
| ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Overall scorescore out of 100, higher is better 14 · 10 of 20 measured | 28.3 | 38.9 |
| Audience scorescore out of 100, higher is better 17 · 12 of 20 measured | 44.8 | 54.7 |
| Business scorescore out of 100, higher is better 14 · 10 of 20 measured | 23.8 | 34.5 |
Show all 25 results (19 more)
| Measure | DeepSeek-V4-Pro (0423) | Muse Wonder |
|---|---|---|
| DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 13 results | ||
| Caveat dropped% of tasks, lower is better 11 · 1 of 20 measured | 16.7% | 0.0% |
| Clean layout% of tasks, higher is better 13 · 18 of 20 measured | 33.3% | 16.7% |
| Design quality% of the maximum, higher is better 19 · 9 of 20 measured | 40.9% | 67.1% |
| Draft figure quoted% of tasks, lower is better 12 · 1 of 20 measured | 33.3% | 0.0% |
| Findings missing% of tasks, lower is better 15 · 1 of 20 measured | 16.7% | 0.0% |
| Head-to-head win rate% of comparisons, higher is betterThe rating weighs each win by how strong the other deck was; the win rate counts wins against whichever decks a model happened to meet, so the two can disagree. 18 · 10 of 20 measured | 30.4% | 63.2% |
| Layout defects% of tasks, lower is better 13 · 18 of 20 measured | 66.7% | 83.3% |
| Misleading metric used% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 20 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Presentable decks% of tasks, higher is better 12 · 10 of 20 measured | 0.0% | 16.7% |
| Recommendation late or wrong% of tasks, lower is better 17 · 1 of 20 measured | 66.7% | 0.0% |
| Slides needing work% of tasks, lower is better 18 · 15 of 20 measured | 83.3% | 66.7% |
| Unsupported claims% of tasks, lower is better 20 · 1 of 20 measured | 66.7% | 0.0% |
| Unsupported numbers% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 20 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 6 results | ||
| Consistency scorescore out of 100, higher is better 18 · 12 of 20 measured | 9.1 | 25.9 |
| Contribution profitsimulated US dollars, higher is better 13 · 11 of 20 measured | $301,289 | $489,176 |
| Cost of a runUS dollars, lower is better 10 · 15 of 20 measured | $0.20 | $0.57 |
| Months over budgetmonths of 12, lower is better 1 · 1 of 20 measured | 0 | 0 |
| Planning scorescore out of 100, higher is better 19 · 4 of 20 measured | 54.0 | 55.0 |
| Return on ad spendprofit per $1 spent, higher is better 13 · 11 of 20 measured | $0.26 | $0.41 |
Compare them with other models
- DeepSeek vs MetaEvery model from both labs, best against best
- DeepSeek-V4-Pro (0423) vs Muse Spark 1.3Most intelligent at $1–3 per million tokens
- DeepSeek-V4-Pro (0423) vs Claude Opus 5.5Most intelligent available today
- Muse Wonder vs Claude Opus 5.5Highest-scoring overall at $3–10 per million tokens
- Muse Wonder vs GPT-6 AstraJust above overall
- Muse Wonder vs GPT-6 SolJust below overall
- Muse Wonder vs Muse Spark 1.3Meta's best other model
Quick answers
Is DeepSeek-V4-Pro (0423) better than Muse Wonder?
Pick Muse Wonder if quality matters most: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 70 against 34). Pick DeepSeek-V4-Pro (0423) if cost matters more: it costs 3.9 times less per deck on DeckBench.
Which is cheaper, DeepSeek-V4-Pro (0423) or Muse Wonder?
DeepSeek-V4-Pro (0423) is cheaper to run: $0.046 against $0.18 per deck on DeckBench (3.9 times less).
Which is better for decks from an analysis, DeepSeek-V4-Pro (0423) or Muse Wonder?
Muse Wonder ranks 8 of 20 models on sale for turning a finished analysis into a deck you could present as it is, against 17 for DeepSeek-V4-Pro (0423).
Which is better for marketing planning, DeepSeek-V4-Pro (0423) or Muse Wonder?
Muse Wonder ranks 10 of 20 models on sale for planning a year of ad spend without overspending, against 14 for DeepSeek-V4-Pro (0423).
Which is better for speed under pressure, DeepSeek-V4-Pro (0423) or Muse Wonder?
Muse Wonder ranks 12 of 25 models on sale for good decisions against a real clock (fast chess), against 25 for DeepSeek-V4-Pro (0423).
Run DeepSeek-V4-Pro (0423) 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.