Compare / Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Muse Ember
Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Muse Ember
Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 83 results on 5 sources that measured both models.
GoogleGemini 3.8 Flash
MetaMuse Ember
Gemini 3.8 Flash wins 2113 too close to callMuse Ember wins 49
Of the 83 results both models have, the better value on each. Results whose reported ranges overlap are too close to call.
Results as of 10 November 2026 (catalogue release 2026-11-10-8342a7178929). See also Google vs Meta, every model from both labs.
Gemini 3.8 Flash or Muse Ember? The short answer
Pick Muse Ember: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 65 against 58) and costs less.
- Spring Prompt overall: Gemini 3.8 Flash 58, Muse Ember 65 (out of 100; how the score works).
- Muse Ember is cheaper to run: $0.002 against $0.010 per product listing on CatalogBench (5.0 times less).
- Muse Ember is newer: released 9 Nov 2026, against 2 Sep 2026 for Gemini 3.8 Flash.
- On our own benchmarks, on the results both models have: Gemini 3.8 Flash does better for speed under pressure; Muse Ember for product listings, decks from an analysis, user surveys and marketing planning.
Head to head
58
Spring Prompt overall
65
$3.00
Price per million tokens, blendedlower is better
$0.20
1,048,576
Context window, tokens
1,048,576
Every fact side by side
| Gemini 3.8 Flash | Muse Ember | |
|---|---|---|
| Price per million tokens | $1.50 in · $7.50 out | $0.10 in · $0.50 out |
| Blended (3 in : 1 out) | $3.00 | $0.20 |
| Cheapest host, blended | $1.50 (Google) | – |
| Cost per product listing (CatalogBench) | $0.010 | $0.002 |
| Cached input, per million | – | $0.004 cached input |
| Intelligence Index | 40.9 | – |
| Spring Prompt overall | 58 | 65 |
| Output speed, tokens a second | 141 | – |
| Context window | 1,048,576 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens |
| Released | 2 Sep 2026 | 9 Nov 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
18 of 29
9 of 29
Decks from an analysisTurning a finished analysis into a deck you could present as it is
23 of 29
15 of 29
User surveysPlanning a user survey and reading its results without being misled
13 of 20
5 of 20
Marketing planningPlanning a year of ad spend without overspending
11 of 29
8 of 29
Agents and tool useMulti-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls
35 of 159
not measured
Professional workReal tasks from banking, consulting and law, business documents and freelance projects
11 of 51
not measured
Reasoning and knowledgeHard questions across science, maths and general knowledge
15 of 187
not measured
WritingWhat people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality
3 of 169
not measured
Sticking to the factsSummarising without inventing things, and factual answers
12 of 139
not measured
Speed under pressureGood decisions against a real clock (fast chess)
10 of 32
19 of 32
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
- Muse Ember review: GPT-6 Luna's price, better at analysis, and no Gemini Flash against a clock 10 Nov 2026
- Kimi K3.1 Pro first look: the best open-weight model on our board, and very slow 5 Nov 2026
- DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 review: better at analysis, much worse at sticking to the product data 19 Oct 2026
- AI Checkpoint: Argon matches Opus, until it sells 16 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 3.8 Flash | Muse Ember |
|---|---|---|
| BulletBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per game · Bullet 60sUS dollars, lower is better 24 · 13 of 38 measured | $0.0154 | $0.0038minimal reasoning |
| Ladder Elo · Bullet 60sladder Elo, higher is better 1 · 27 of 38 measured | 1,068low reasoning | 310minimal reasoning |
| Games lost on time · Bullet 60s% of games, lower is better 21 · 27 of 38 measured | 50.0%low reasoning | 62.5%minimal reasoning |
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per productUS dollars, lower is better 17 · 6 of 30 measured | $0.0103 | $0.0020 |
| Reliably publish-ready% of products, higher is better 17 · 11 of 29 measured | 35.7% | 53.6% |
| Reliably publish-ready · sales brief% of products, higher is better 20 · 9 of 29 measured | 3.6% | 35.7% |
| DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per deckUS dollars, lower is better 15 · 5 of 30 measured | $0.0613 | $0.0112 |
| 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. 23 · 15 of 30 measured | 808 | 1,193 |
| Accurate decks% of tasks, higher is better 21 · 9 of 30 measured | 16.7% | 66.7% |
| ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Overall scorescore out of 100, higher is better 11 · 8 of 30 measured | 51.4 | 51.8 |
| Audience scorescore out of 100, higher is better 10 · 18 of 30 measured | 67.1 | 60.6 |
| Business scorescore out of 100, higher is better 11 · 7 of 30 measured | 51.0 | 53.1 |
| 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. 13 · 5 of 21 measured | 898 | 1,392 |
| Cost per taskUS dollars, lower is better 14 · 6 of 21 measured | $0.0943 | $0.0213 |
| Analysis scorepoints of 100, higher is better 12 · 10 of 21 measured | 74.7 | 84.3 |
Show all 83 results (68 more)
| Measure | Gemini 3.8 Flash | Muse Ember |
|---|---|---|
| BulletBench measured by Spring Prompt · 2 results | ||
| Invalid moves · Bullet 60s% of moves, lower is better 1 · 1 of 38 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Median move time · Bullet 60smilliseconds, lower is better 27 · 26 of 38 measured | 1.8 slow reasoning | 1.8 sminimal reasoning |
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 28 results | ||
| Channel compliance% of products, higher is better 22 · 1 of 30 measured | 99.4% | 100.0% |
| Channel rules broken% of products, lower is better 17 · 1 of 30 measured | 0.6% | 0.0% |
| Channel rules broken · sales brief% of products, lower is better 16 · 1 of 30 measured | 0.6% | 0.0% |
| Claims to check% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 28 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Claims to check · sales brief% of products, lower is better 23 · 1 of 28 measured | 5.4% | 0.0% |
| Conflicts caught% of conflicts, higher is better 1 · 1 of 30 measured | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| Content quality% of checks, higher is better 9 · 23 of 30 measured | 97.7% | 95.6% |
| Content quality · sales brief% of checks, higher is better 12 · 4 of 30 measured | 97.6% | 98.5% |
| Decision accuracy% of decisions, higher is better 16 · 20 of 30 measured | 96.4% | 95.8% |
| Failed outputs% of products, lower is better 1 · 28 of 30 measured | 0.0% | 2.4% |
| Failed outputs · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 30 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Field accuracy% of missing fields, higher is better 22 · 14 of 30 measured | 92.7% | 93.7% |
| Invented values% of filled values, lower is better 2 · 18 of 30 measured | 0.3% | 1.7% |
| Missing UK information% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 30 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Missing UK information · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 30 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Not findable% of products, lower is better 24 · 9 of 30 measured | 8.3% | 3.6% |
| Not findable · sales brief% of products, lower is better 25 · 14 of 30 measured | 8.9% | 3.6% |
| Publish-ready listings% of products, higher is better 18 · 8 of 30 measured | 54.8% | 71.4% |
| Publish-ready listings · sales brief% of products, higher is better 20 · 11 of 30 measured | 16.7% | 54.2% |
| Time per productseconds, lower is better 19 · 5 of 30 measured | 18.7 | 8.10 |
| Unsupported claimsclaims per product, lower is better 19 · 8 of 30 measured | 0.79 | 0.29 |
| Unsupported claims% of products, lower is better 21 · 7 of 30 measured | 31.6% | 7.1% |
| Unsupported claims · sales brief% of products, lower is better 25 · 12 of 30 measured | 81.6% | 33.3% |
| Unsupported claims · sales briefclaims per product, lower is better 21 · 10 of 30 measured | 3.08 | 0.69 |
| Wrong attributes% of products, lower is better 9 · 5 of 30 measured | 15.5% | 13.7% |
| Wrong attributes · sales brief% of products, lower is better 2 · 8 of 30 measured | 11.9% | 14.9% |
| Wrong category or variant% of products, lower is better 24 · 5 of 30 measured | 3.6% | 1.8% |
| Wrong category or variant · sales brief% of products, lower is better 20 · 3 of 30 measured | 3.0% | 0.6% |
| DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 14 results | ||
| Caveat dropped% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 29 of 30 measured | 0.0% | 33.3% |
| Clean layout% of tasks, higher is better 23 · 27 of 30 measured | 16.7% | 0.0% |
| Design quality% of the maximum, higher is better 17 · 21 of 30 measured | 61.7% | 56.7% |
| Draft figure quoted% of tasks, lower is better 23 · 12 of 30 measured | 50.0% | 16.7% |
| Findings missing% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 20 of 30 measured | 0.0% | 16.7% |
| 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. 24 · 16 of 30 measured | 40.0% | 51.9% |
| Layout defects% of tasks, lower is better 23 · 27 of 30 measured | 83.3% | 100.0% |
| Misleading metric used% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 26 of 30 measured | 0.0% | 16.7% |
| Presentable decks% of tasks, higher is better 14 · 14 of 30 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Recommendation late or wrong% of tasks, lower is better 17 · 17 of 30 measured | 33.3% | 33.3% |
| Slides needing work% of tasks, lower is better 9 · 15 of 30 measured | 33.3% | 50.0% |
| Time per deckseconds, lower is better 13 · 4 of 30 measured | 93.0 | 30.2 |
| Unsupported claims% of tasks, lower is better 27 · 15 of 30 measured | 50.0% | 16.7% |
| Unsupported numbers% of tasks, lower is better 24 · 24 of 30 measured | 16.7% | 16.7% |
| ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 6 results | ||
| Consistency scorescore out of 100, higher is better 5 · 4 of 30 measured | 36.4 | 38.6 |
| Contribution profitsimulated US dollars, higher is better 5 · 13 of 30 measured | $842,432 | $621,558 |
| Cost of a runUS dollars, lower is better 15 · 4 of 30 measured | $0.16 | $0.0297 |
| Months over budgetmonths of 12, lower is better 1 · 1 of 30 measured | 0 | 0 |
| Planning scorescore out of 100, higher is better 19 · 8 of 30 measured | 54.7 | 55.0 |
| Return on ad spendprofit per $1 spent, higher is better 10 · 5 of 30 measured | $0.65 | $0.70 |
| SurveyBench measured by Spring Prompt · 18 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. 5 · 6 of 21 measured | 65.3% | 62.2% |
| Leading or double-barrelled questions% of tasks, lower is better 18 · 9 of 21 measured | 66.7% | 33.3% |
| Mistaken next steps% of tasks, lower is better 5 · 9 of 21 measured | 11.1% | 22.2% |
| Numbers right% of answers, higher is better 1 · 1 of 21 measured | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| Objectives unanswerable% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 21 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Output tokens per tasktokens, lower is better 3 · 7 of 11 measured | 21,981 | 40,298 |
| Precision ignored% of tasks, lower is better 15 · 11 of 21 measured | 44.4% | 11.1% |
| Research scorepoints of 100, higher is better 12 · 10 of 21 measured | 77.6 | 86.9 |
| Sound research% of tasks, higher is better 12 · 8 of 21 measured | 0.0% | 22.2% |
| Stakeholder's view presumed% of tasks, lower is better 13 · 1 of 21 measured | 22.2% | 0.0% |
| Survey plan scorepoints of 100, higher is better 15 · 8 of 21 measured | 84.4 | 92.8 |
| Survey structure% of tasks, lower is better 9 · 9 of 21 measured | 22.2% | 22.2% |
| Time per taskseconds, lower is better 8 · 3 of 21 measured | 131 | 73.2 |
| Traps handled% of traps, higher is better 15 · 3 of 21 measured | 78.3% | 98.4% |
| Traps missed% of tasks, lower is better 13 · 3 of 21 measured | 88.9% | 22.2% |
| Unsupported findings% of tasks, lower is better 12 · 5 of 21 measured | 77.8% | 22.2% |
| Wrong numbers% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 11 of 21 measured | 0.0% | 11.1% |
| Wrong recommendation% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 12 of 21 measured | 0.0% | 22.2% |
Compare them with other models
- Google vs MetaEvery model from both labs, best against best
- Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Claude Opus 5.5Most intelligent at $3–10 per million tokens
- Gemini 3.8 Flash vs DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashFastest with similar intelligence
- Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Claude Fable 5.2Highest-scoring overall available today
- Muse Ember vs Claude Fable 5.2Highest-scoring overall available today
- Muse Ember vs Claude Fable 5.1Just above overall
- Muse Ember vs Claude Sonnet 5.5Just below overall
- Muse Ember vs Muse WonderMeta's best other model
Quick answers
Is Gemini 3.8 Flash better than Muse Ember?
Pick Muse Ember: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 65 against 58) and costs less.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 3.8 Flash or Muse Ember?
Muse Ember is cheaper to run: $0.002 against $0.010 per product listing on CatalogBench (5.0 times less).
Which is better for product listings, Gemini 3.8 Flash or Muse Ember?
Muse Ember ranks 9 of 29 models on sale for turning a sparse product feed and photos into listings that can go live, against 18 for Gemini 3.8 Flash.
Which is better for decks from an analysis, Gemini 3.8 Flash or Muse Ember?
Muse Ember ranks 15 of 29 models on sale for turning a finished analysis into a deck you could present as it is, against 23 for Gemini 3.8 Flash.
Which is better for user surveys, Gemini 3.8 Flash or Muse Ember?
Muse Ember ranks 5 of 20 models on sale for planning a user survey and reading its results without being misled, against 13 for Gemini 3.8 Flash.
Which is better for marketing planning, Gemini 3.8 Flash or Muse Ember?
Muse Ember ranks 8 of 29 models on sale for planning a year of ad spend without overspending, against 11 for Gemini 3.8 Flash.
Which is better for speed under pressure, Gemini 3.8 Flash or Muse Ember?
Gemini 3.8 Flash ranks 10 of 32 models on sale for good decisions against a real clock (fast chess), against 19 for Muse Ember.
Run Gemini 3.8 Flash and Muse Ember on your own prompt.
Benchmarks aren't your task. Test both side by side on your prompt, with every answer checked against your rules and the cost of each one.