Compare / Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview vs Muse Wonder
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview vs Muse Wonder
Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 84 results on 5 sources that measured both models.
GoogleGemini 3.1 Pro Preview
MetaMuse Wonder
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview wins 2023 too close to callMuse Wonder wins 41
Of the 84 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 Google vs Meta, every model from both labs.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview or Muse Wonder? The short answer
Pick Muse Wonder: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 70 against 49) at about the same price.
- Spring Prompt overall: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview 49, Muse Wonder 70 (out of 100; how the score works).
- They cost about the same to run: $0.035 and $0.036 per product listing on CatalogBench.
- Muse Wonder is newer: released 12 Oct 2026, against 19 Feb 2026 for Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview.
- On our own benchmarks, on the results both models have: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview does better for marketing planning; Muse Wonder for product listings, decks from an analysis and user surveys.
Head to head
49
Spring Prompt overall
70
$4.50
Price per million tokens, blendedlower is better
$8.00
1,048,576
Context window, tokens
1,048,576
Every fact side by side
| Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | Muse Wonder | |
|---|---|---|
| Price per million tokens | $2.00 in · $12.00 out | $4.00 in · $20.00 out |
| Blended (3 in : 1 out) | $4.50 | $8.00 |
| Cheapest host, blended | $4.50 (Google) | – |
| Cost per product listing (CatalogBench) | $0.035 | $0.036 |
| Cached input, per million | $0.20 cached input | $0.20 cached input |
| Intelligence Index | 29.7 | – |
| Spring Prompt overall | 49 | 70 |
| Output speed, tokens a second | 120 | – |
| Context window | 1,048,576 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens |
| Released | 19 Feb 2026 | 12 Oct 2026 (newer) |
| Weights | Closed | Closed |
| Developer based in | the US | 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.
Product listingsTurning a sparse product feed and photos into listings that can go live
9 of 21
4 of 21
Decks from an analysisTurning a finished analysis into a deck you could present as it is
15 of 20
8 of 20
User surveysPlanning a user survey and reading its results without being misled
6 of 9
2 of 9
Marketing planningPlanning a year of ad spend without overspending
9 of 20
10 of 20
Agents and tool useMulti-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls
61 of 164
not measured
Professional workReal tasks from banking, consulting and law, business documents and freelance projects
36 of 51
not measured
Reasoning and knowledgeHard questions across science, maths and general knowledge
24 of 198
not measured
WritingWhat people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality
9 of 188
not measured
Sticking to the factsSummarising without inventing things, and factual answers
34 of 152
not measured
Speed under pressureGood decisions against a real clock (fast chess)
5 of 24
12 of 24
Their slides, side by side
The same brief for both: Manchester store investment review for Hearthside Coffee, an invented company. First slide of each deck from DeckBench.
From our research
- BulletBench: we made 23 AI models play speed chess, and the clock was the judge 3 Jul 2026
- Claude vs Gemini vs GPT in a 12-Month Marketing Simulation 25 Mar 2026
- The AI Marketing Benchmark That Punishes Plausible-Sounding Strategy 20 Mar 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 | Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | Muse Wonder |
|---|---|---|
| BulletBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per game · Blitz 3+2US dollars, lower is better 11 · 12 of 14 measured | $0.21 | $0.27 |
| Cost per game · Bullet 60sUS dollars, lower is better 26 · 28 of 29 measured | $0.0446low reasoning | $0.0663minimal reasoning |
| Ladder Elo · Bullet 60sladder Elo, higher is better 11 · 19 of 29 measured | 529low reasoning | 409minimal reasoning |
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per productUS dollars, lower is better 16 · 17 of 21 measured | $0.0355 | $0.0361 |
| Reliably publish-ready% of products, higher is better 9 · 3 of 21 measured | 44.6% | 66.1% |
| Reliably publish-ready · sales brief% of products, higher is better 9 · 4 of 21 measured | 16.1% | 51.8% |
| DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per deckUS dollars, lower is better 10 · 14 of 20 measured | $0.14 | $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. 15 · 8 of 20 measured | 775 | 1,273 |
| Accurate decks% of tasks, higher is better 9 · 1 of 20 measured | 50.0% | 100.0% |
| ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Overall scorescore out of 100, higher is better 9 · 10 of 20 measured | 43.5 | 38.9 |
| Audience scorescore out of 100, higher is better 6 · 12 of 20 measured | 67.5 | 54.7 |
| Business scorescore out of 100, higher is better 9 · 10 of 20 measured | 35.9 | 34.5 |
| SurveyBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Analysis ratingrating, higher is betterThe rating weighs each win by how strong the other analysis was; the win rate counts wins against whichever analyses a model happened to meet, so the two can disagree. 6 · 2 of 9 measured | 792 | 1,460 |
| Cost per taskUS dollars, lower is better 7 · 8 of 9 measured | $0.33 | $0.35 |
| Analysis scorepoints of 100, higher is better 5 · 2 of 9 measured | 66.4 | 96.2 |
Show all 84 results (69 more)
| Measure | Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | Muse Wonder |
|---|---|---|
| BulletBench measured by Spring Prompt · 7 results | ||
| Games lost on time · Blitz 3+2% of games, lower is better 11 · 14 of 14 measured | 50.0% | 75.0% |
| Games lost on time · Bullet 60s% of games, lower is better 23 · 23 of 29 measured | 58.3%low reasoning | 58.3%minimal reasoning |
| Invalid moves · Blitz 3+2% of moves, lower is better 1 · 1 of 14 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Invalid moves · Bullet 60s% of moves, lower is better 1 · 1 of 29 measured | 0.0%low reasoning | 0.0%minimal reasoning |
| Ladder Elo · Blitz 3+2ladder Elo, higher is better 5 · 13 of 14 measured | 683 | 358 |
| Median move time · Blitz 3+2milliseconds, lower is better 10 · 12 of 14 measured | 6.2 s | 7.1 s |
| Median move time · Bullet 60smilliseconds, lower is better 28 · 25 of 29 measured | 3.1 slow reasoning | 1.9 sminimal reasoning |
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 27 results | ||
| Channel compliance% of products, higher is better 14 · 14 of 21 measured | 99.4% | 99.4% |
| Channel rules broken% of products, lower is better 11 · 11 of 21 measured | 0.6% | 0.6% |
| Channel rules broken · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 21 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Claims to check% of products, lower is better 17 · 1 of 21 measured | 1.2% | 0.0% |
| Claims to check · sales brief% of products, lower is better 18 · 1 of 21 measured | 10.1% | 0.0% |
| Conflicts caught% of conflicts, higher is better 1 · 1 of 21 measured | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| Content quality% of checks, higher is better 11 · 3 of 21 measured | 96.9% | 98.3% |
| Content quality · sales brief% of checks, higher is better 11 · 3 of 21 measured | 97.2% | 98.5% |
| Decision accuracy% of decisions, higher is better 10 · 3 of 21 measured | 96.6% | 98.3% |
| Failed outputs% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 21 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Failed outputs · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 21 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Field accuracy% of missing fields, higher is better 2 · 1 of 21 measured | 95.4% | 96.1% |
| Invented values% of filled values, lower is better 12 · 11 of 21 measured | 1.5% | 1.4% |
| Missing UK information% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 21 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Missing UK information · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 21 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Not findable% of products, lower is better 14 · 4 of 21 measured | 7.7% | 3.6% |
| Not findable · sales brief% of products, lower is better 14 · 8 of 21 measured | 6.0% | 3.6% |
| Publish-ready listings% of products, higher is better 11 · 3 of 21 measured | 58.9% | 75.0% |
| Publish-ready listings · sales brief% of products, higher is better 10 · 5 of 21 measured | 30.4% | 67.3% |
| Unsupported claimsclaims per product, lower is better 10 · 4 of 21 measured | 0.66 | 0.21 |
| Unsupported claims% of products, lower is better 11 · 4 of 21 measured | 26.8% | 7.1% |
| Unsupported claims · sales brief% of products, lower is better 12 · 5 of 21 measured | 67.3% | 17.9% |
| Unsupported claims · sales briefclaims per product, lower is better 12 · 5 of 21 measured | 2.13 | 0.36 |
| Wrong attributes% of products, lower is better 5 · 2 of 21 measured | 14.9% | 13.1% |
| Wrong attributes · sales brief% of products, lower is better 9 · 4 of 21 measured | 16.1% | 14.3% |
| Wrong category or variant% of products, lower is better 4 · 10 of 21 measured | 1.8% | 2.4% |
| Wrong category or variant · sales brief% of products, lower is better 4 · 10 of 21 measured | 1.8% | 2.4% |
| 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 11 · 18 of 20 measured | 50.0% | 16.7% |
| Design quality% of the maximum, higher is better 16 · 9 of 20 measured | 51.4% | 67.1% |
| Draft figure quoted% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 20 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Findings missing% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 20 measured | 0.0% | 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. 17 · 10 of 20 measured | 33.3% | 63.2% |
| Layout defects% of tasks, lower is better 11 · 18 of 20 measured | 50.0% | 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 10 · 10 of 20 measured | 16.7% | 16.7% |
| Recommendation late or wrong% of tasks, lower is better 14 · 1 of 20 measured | 50.0% | 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 1 · 1 of 20 measured | 0.0% | 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 5 · 12 of 20 measured | 33.9 | 25.9 |
| Contribution profitsimulated US dollars, higher is better 10 · 11 of 20 measured | $507,736 | $489,176 |
| Cost of a runUS dollars, lower is better 14 · 15 of 20 measured | $0.52 | $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 7 · 4 of 20 measured | 54.9 | 55.0 |
| Return on ad spendprofit per $1 spent, higher is better 10 · 11 of 20 measured | $0.42 | $0.41 |
| SurveyBench measured by Spring Prompt · 16 results | ||
| Head-to-head win rate% of comparisons, higher is betterThe rating weighs each win by how strong the other analysis was; the win rate counts wins against whichever analyses a model happened to meet, so the two can disagree. 6 · 3 of 9 measured | 38.7% | 67.9% |
| Leading or double-barrelled questions% of tasks, lower is better 5 · 5 of 9 measured | 44.4% | 44.4% |
| Mistaken next steps% of tasks, lower is better 5 · 1 of 9 measured | 33.3% | 0.0% |
| Numbers right% of answers, higher is better 1 · 1 of 9 measured | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| Objectives unanswerable% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 5 of 9 measured | 0.0% | 11.1% |
| Precision ignored% of tasks, lower is better 5 · 4 of 9 measured | 55.6% | 22.2% |
| Research scorepoints of 100, higher is better 5 · 3 of 9 measured | 71.3 | 93.6 |
| Sound research% of tasks, higher is better 5 · 3 of 9 measured | 0.0% | 33.3% |
| Stakeholder's view presumed% of tasks, lower is better 5 · 4 of 9 measured | 22.2% | 11.1% |
| Survey plan scorepoints of 100, higher is better 7 · 5 of 9 measured | 82.9 | 87.8 |
| Survey structure% of tasks, lower is better 6 · 8 of 9 measured | 22.2% | 33.3% |
| Traps handled% of traps, higher is better 6 · 1 of 9 measured | 71.0% | 100.0% |
| Traps missed% of tasks, lower is better 5 · 1 of 9 measured | 88.9% | 0.0% |
| Unsupported findings% of tasks, lower is better 5 · 2 of 9 measured | 77.8% | 11.1% |
| Wrong numbers% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 9 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Wrong recommendation% of tasks, lower is better 6 · 1 of 9 measured | 44.4% | 0.0% |
Compare them with other models
- Google vs MetaEvery model from both labs, best against best
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview vs Claude Opus 5.5Most intelligent at $3–10 per million tokens
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview vs Inkling SmallFastest with similar intelligence
- 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 Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview better than Muse Wonder?
Pick Muse Wonder: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 70 against 49) at about the same price.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview or Muse Wonder?
They cost about the same to run: $0.035 and $0.036 per product listing on CatalogBench.
Which is better for product listings, Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview or Muse Wonder?
Muse Wonder ranks 4 of 21 models on sale for turning a sparse product feed and photos into listings that can go live, against 9 for Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview.
Which is better for decks from an analysis, Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview 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 15 for Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview.
Which is better for user surveys, Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview or Muse Wonder?
Muse Wonder ranks 2 of 9 models on sale for planning a user survey and reading its results without being misled, against 6 for Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview.
Which is better for marketing planning, Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview or Muse Wonder?
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview ranks 9 of 20 models on sale for planning a year of ad spend without overspending, against 10 for Muse Wonder.
Which is better for speed under pressure, Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview or Muse Wonder?
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview ranks 5 of 24 models on sale for good decisions against a real clock (fast chess), against 12 for Muse Wonder.
Run Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview 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.