Compare / Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Muse Wonder
Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Muse Wonder
Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 65 results on 4 sources that measured both models.
GoogleGemini 3.8 Flash
MetaMuse Wonder
Gemini 3.8 Flash wins 2016 too close to callMuse Wonder wins 29
Of the 65 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 3.8 Flash or Muse Wonder? The short answer
Pick Muse Wonder if quality matters most: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 70 against 61). Pick Gemini 3.8 Flash if cost matters more: it costs 3.5 times less per product listing on CatalogBench.
- Spring Prompt overall: Gemini 3.8 Flash 61, Muse Wonder 70 (out of 100; how the score works).
- Gemini 3.8 Flash is cheaper to run: $0.010 against $0.036 per product listing on CatalogBench (3.5 times less).
- Muse Wonder is newer: released 12 Oct 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 marketing planning and speed under pressure; Muse Wonder for product listings and decks from an analysis.
Head to head
61
Spring Prompt overall
70
$3.00
Price per million tokens, blendedlower is better
$8.00
1,048,576
Context window, tokens
1,048,576
Every fact side by side
| Gemini 3.8 Flash | Muse Wonder | |
|---|---|---|
| Price per million tokens | $1.50 in · $7.50 out | $4.00 in · $20.00 out |
| Blended (3 in : 1 out) | $3.00 | $8.00 |
| Cheapest host, blended | $1.50 (Google) | – |
| Cost per product listing (CatalogBench) | $0.010 | $0.036 |
| Cached input, per million | – | $0.20 cached input |
| Intelligence Index | 40.9 | – |
| Spring Prompt overall | 61 | 70 |
| Output speed, tokens a second | 147 | – |
| Context window | 1,048,576 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens |
| Released | 2 Sep 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
13 of 21
4 of 21
Decks from an analysisTurning a finished analysis into a deck you could present as it is
14 of 20
8 of 20
User surveysPlanning a user survey and reading its results without being misled
not measured
2 of 9
Marketing planningPlanning a year of ad spend without overspending
7 of 20
10 of 20
Agents and tool useMulti-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls
31 of 164
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
12 of 198
not measured
WritingWhat people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality
2 of 188
not measured
Sticking to the factsSummarising without inventing things, and factual answers
12 of 152
not measured
Speed under pressureGood decisions against a real clock (fast chess)
6 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
- We Told 11 AI Models What Happened in 2026. Most of Them Thought We Were Making It Up. 12 Oct 2026
- We Tested the Anatomy Claude Code Skill on Everyday Objects and Seven AI Models 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
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 Wonder |
|---|---|---|
| BulletBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per game · Blitz 3+2US dollars, lower is better 8 · 12 of 14 measured | $0.0795 | $0.27 |
| Cost per game · Bullet 60sUS dollars, lower is better 18 · 28 of 29 measured | $0.0154 | $0.0663minimal reasoning |
| Ladder Elo · Bullet 60sladder Elo, higher is better 1 · 19 of 29 measured | 1,068low reasoning | 409minimal reasoning |
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per productUS dollars, lower is better 11 · 17 of 21 measured | $0.0103 | $0.0361 |
| Reliably publish-ready% of products, higher is better 12 · 3 of 21 measured | 35.7% | 66.1% |
| Reliably publish-ready · sales brief% of products, higher is better 15 · 4 of 21 measured | 3.6% | 51.8% |
| DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per deckUS dollars, lower is better 9 · 14 of 20 measured | $0.0613 | $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. 14 · 8 of 20 measured | 816 | 1,273 |
| Accurate decks% of tasks, higher is better 14 · 1 of 20 measured | 16.7% | 100.0% |
| ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Overall scorescore out of 100, higher is better 7 · 10 of 20 measured | 51.4 | 38.9 |
| Audience scorescore out of 100, higher is better 7 · 12 of 20 measured | 67.1 | 54.7 |
| Business scorescore out of 100, higher is better 7 · 10 of 20 measured | 51.0 | 34.5 |
Show all 65 results (53 more)
| Measure | Gemini 3.8 Flash | Muse Wonder |
|---|---|---|
| BulletBench measured by Spring Prompt · 7 results | ||
| Games lost on time · Blitz 3+2% of games, lower is better 6 · 14 of 14 measured | 12.5% | 75.0% |
| Games lost on time · Bullet 60s% of games, lower is better 19 · 23 of 29 measured | 50.0%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% | 0.0%minimal reasoning |
| Ladder Elo · Blitz 3+2ladder Elo, higher is better 1 · 13 of 14 measured | 1,126 | 358 |
| Median move time · Blitz 3+2milliseconds, lower is better 6 · 12 of 14 measured | 4.0 s | 7.1 s |
| Median move time · Bullet 60smilliseconds, lower is better 24 · 25 of 29 measured | 1.8 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 10 · 1 of 21 measured | 0.6% | 0.0% |
| Claims to check% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 21 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Claims to check · sales brief% of products, lower is better 16 · 1 of 21 measured | 5.4% | 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 6 · 3 of 21 measured | 97.7% | 98.3% |
| Content quality · sales brief% of checks, higher is better 8 · 3 of 21 measured | 97.6% | 98.5% |
| Decision accuracy% of decisions, higher is better 11 · 3 of 21 measured | 96.4% | 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 14 · 1 of 21 measured | 92.7% | 96.1% |
| Invented values% of filled values, lower is better 2 · 11 of 21 measured | 0.3% | 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 16 · 4 of 21 measured | 8.3% | 3.6% |
| Not findable · sales brief% of products, lower is better 17 · 8 of 21 measured | 8.9% | 3.6% |
| Publish-ready listings% of products, higher is better 12 · 3 of 21 measured | 54.8% | 75.0% |
| Publish-ready listings · sales brief% of products, higher is better 14 · 5 of 21 measured | 16.7% | 67.3% |
| Unsupported claimsclaims per product, lower is better 12 · 4 of 21 measured | 0.79 | 0.21 |
| Unsupported claims% of products, lower is better 13 · 4 of 21 measured | 31.6% | 7.1% |
| Unsupported claims · sales briefclaims per product, lower is better 14 · 5 of 21 measured | 3.08 | 0.36 |
| Unsupported claims · sales brief% of products, lower is better 17 · 5 of 21 measured | 81.6% | 17.9% |
| Wrong attributes% of products, lower is better 6 · 2 of 21 measured | 15.5% | 13.1% |
| Wrong attributes · sales brief% of products, lower is better 2 · 4 of 21 measured | 11.9% | 14.3% |
| Wrong category or variant% of products, lower is better 16 · 10 of 21 measured | 3.6% | 2.4% |
| Wrong category or variant · sales brief% of products, lower is better 14 · 10 of 21 measured | 3.0% | 2.4% |
| DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 13 results | ||
| Caveat dropped% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 20 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Clean layout% of tasks, higher is better 18 · 18 of 20 measured | 16.7% | 16.7% |
| Design quality% of the maximum, higher is better 12 · 9 of 20 measured | 61.7% | 67.1% |
| Draft figure quoted% of tasks, lower is better 17 · 1 of 20 measured | 50.0% | 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. 15 · 10 of 20 measured | 36.4% | 63.2% |
| Layout defects% of tasks, lower is better 18 · 18 of 20 measured | 83.3% | 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 11 · 1 of 20 measured | 33.3% | 0.0% |
| Slides needing work% of tasks, lower is better 7 · 15 of 20 measured | 33.3% | 66.7% |
| Unsupported claims% of tasks, lower is better 18 · 1 of 20 measured | 50.0% | 0.0% |
| Unsupported numbers% of tasks, lower is better 18 · 1 of 20 measured | 16.7% | 0.0% |
| ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 6 results | ||
| Consistency scorescore out of 100, higher is better 3 · 12 of 20 measured | 36.4 | 25.9 |
| Contribution profitsimulated US dollars, higher is better 3 · 11 of 20 measured | $842,432 | $489,176 |
| Cost of a runUS dollars, lower is better 8 · 15 of 20 measured | $0.16 | $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 14 · 4 of 20 measured | 54.7 | 55.0 |
| Return on ad spendprofit per $1 spent, higher is better 6 · 11 of 20 measured | $0.65 | $0.41 |
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 Claude Haiku 5.5Fastest 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 3.8 Flash better than Muse Wonder?
Pick Muse Wonder if quality matters most: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 70 against 61). Pick Gemini 3.8 Flash if cost matters more: it costs 3.5 times less per product listing on CatalogBench.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 3.8 Flash or Muse Wonder?
Gemini 3.8 Flash is cheaper to run: $0.010 against $0.036 per product listing on CatalogBench (3.5 times less).
Which is better for product listings, Gemini 3.8 Flash 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 13 for Gemini 3.8 Flash.
Which is better for decks from an analysis, Gemini 3.8 Flash 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 14 for Gemini 3.8 Flash.
Which is better for marketing planning, Gemini 3.8 Flash or Muse Wonder?
Gemini 3.8 Flash ranks 7 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 3.8 Flash or Muse Wonder?
Gemini 3.8 Flash ranks 6 of 24 models on sale for good decisions against a real clock (fast chess), against 12 for Muse Wonder.
Run Gemini 3.8 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.