Compare / Gemini 4 Hydrogen vs Muse Ember
Gemini 4 Hydrogen vs Muse Ember
Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 85 results on 5 sources that measured both models.
GoogleGemini 4 Hydrogen
MetaMuse Ember
Gemini 4 Hydrogen wins 2819 too close to callMuse Ember wins 38
Of the 85 results both models have, the better value on each. Results whose reported ranges overlap are too close to call.
Results as of 13 November 2026 (catalogue release 2026-11-13-a1171a342f96). See also Google vs Meta, every model from both labs.
Gemini 4 Hydrogen or Muse Ember? The short answer
They score about the same, so pick Muse Ember: it costs 11 times less per product listing on CatalogBench.
- Spring Prompt overall: Gemini 4 Hydrogen 65, Muse Ember 65 (out of 100; how the score works).
- Muse Ember is cheaper to run: $0.002 against $0.022 per product listing on CatalogBench (11 times less).
- On our own benchmarks, on the results both models have: Muse Ember does better for user surveys and marketing planning.
Head to head
65
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 4 Hydrogen | 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 | – | – |
| Cost per product listing (CatalogBench) | $0.022 | $0.002 |
| Cached input, per million | $0.075 cached input | $0.004 cached input |
| Intelligence Index | – | – |
| Spring Prompt overall | 65 | 65 |
| Output speed, tokens a second | – | – |
| Context window | 1,048,576 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens |
| Released | – | 9 Nov 2026 |
| 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
8 of 31
10 of 31
Decks from an analysisTurning a finished analysis into a deck you could present as it is
16 of 31
15 of 31
User surveysPlanning a user survey and reading its results without being misled
10 of 22
5 of 22
Marketing planningPlanning a year of ad spend without overspending
15 of 31
8 of 31
Speed under pressureGood decisions against a real clock (fast chess)
5 of 34
21 of 34
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
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 4 Hydrogen | Muse Ember |
|---|---|---|
| BulletBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per game · Bullet 60sUS dollars, lower is better 53 · 30 of 58 measured | $0.0439low reasoning | $0.0038minimal reasoning |
| Ladder Elo · Bullet 60sladder Elo, higher is better 24 · 47 of 58 measured | 557 | 310minimal reasoning |
| Games lost on time · Bullet 60s% of games, lower is better 45 · 45 of 58 measured | 62.5% | 62.5%minimal reasoning |
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per productUS dollars, lower is better 22 · 6 of 32 measured | $0.0219 | $0.0020 |
| Reliably publish-ready% of products, higher is better 7 · 12 of 31 measured | 62.5% | 53.6% |
| Reliably publish-ready · sales brief% of products, higher is better 11 · 9 of 31 measured | 23.2% | 35.7% |
| DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per deckUS dollars, lower is better 25 · 5 of 32 measured | $0.25 | $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. 16 · 15 of 32 measured | 1,147 | 1,169 |
| Accurate decks% of tasks, higher is better 9 · 9 of 32 measured | 66.7% | 66.7% |
| ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Overall scorescore out of 100, higher is better 15 · 8 of 32 measured | 45.4 | 51.8 |
| Audience scorescore out of 100, higher is better 11 · 20 of 32 measured | 67.0 | 60.6 |
| Business scorescore out of 100, higher is better 15 · 7 of 32 measured | 41.6 | 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. 10 · 5 of 23 measured | 1,117 | 1,393 |
| Cost per taskUS dollars, lower is better 19 · 6 of 23 measured | $0.34 | $0.0213 |
| Analysis scorepoints of 100, higher is better 13 · 11 of 23 measured | 79.5 | 84.3 |
Show all 85 results (70 more)
| Measure | Gemini 4 Hydrogen | Muse Ember |
|---|---|---|
| BulletBench measured by Spring Prompt · 2 results | ||
| Invalid moves · Bullet 60s% of moves, lower is better 1 · 1 of 58 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Median move time · Bullet 60smilliseconds, lower is better 49 · 44 of 58 measured | 2.6 slow reasoning | 1.8 sminimal reasoning |
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 29 results | ||
| Channel compliance% of products, higher is better 1 · 1 of 32 measured | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| Channel rules broken% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 32 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Channel rules broken · sales brief% of products, lower is better 17 · 1 of 32 measured | 0.6% | 0.0% |
| Claims to check% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 30 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Claims to check · sales brief% of products, lower is better 19 · 1 of 30 measured | 0.6% | 0.0% |
| Conflicts caught% of conflicts, higher is better 1 · 1 of 32 measured | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| Content quality% of checks, higher is better 9 · 25 of 32 measured | 97.7% | 95.6% |
| Content quality · sales brief% of checks, higher is better 18 · 4 of 32 measured | 97.1% | 98.5% |
| Decision accuracy% of decisions, higher is better 11 · 22 of 32 measured | 97.5% | 95.8% |
| Failed outputs% of products, lower is better 26 · 30 of 32 measured | 0.6% | 2.4% |
| Failed outputs · sales brief% of products, lower is better 27 · 1 of 32 measured | 1.2% | 0.0% |
| Field accuracy% of missing fields, higher is better 23 · 15 of 32 measured | 92.7% | 93.7% |
| Invented values% of filled values, lower is better 1 · 20 of 32 measured | 0.0% | 1.7% |
| Missing UK information% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 32 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Missing UK information · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 32 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Not findable% of products, lower is better 9 · 11 of 32 measured | 3.0% | 3.6% |
| Not findable · sales brief% of products, lower is better 11 · 16 of 32 measured | 2.4% | 3.6% |
| Output tokens per producttokens, lower is better 6 · 9 of 10 measured | 2,416 | 3,816 |
| Publish-ready listings% of products, higher is better 7 · 9 of 32 measured | 74.4% | 71.4% |
| Publish-ready listings · sales brief% of products, higher is better 13 · 11 of 32 measured | 42.9% | 54.2% |
| Time per productseconds, lower is better 20 · 5 of 32 measured | 20.1 | 8.10 |
| Unsupported claims% of products, lower is better 11 · 7 of 32 measured | 9.5% | 7.1% |
| Unsupported claimsclaims per product, lower is better 8 · 9 of 32 measured | 0.24 | 0.29 |
| Unsupported claims · sales briefclaims per product, lower is better 13 · 10 of 32 measured | 1.27 | 0.69 |
| Unsupported claims · sales brief% of products, lower is better 14 · 12 of 32 measured | 48.8% | 33.3% |
| Wrong attributes% of products, lower is better 4 · 7 of 32 measured | 13.1% | 13.7% |
| Wrong attributes · sales brief% of products, lower is better 5 · 10 of 32 measured | 14.3% | 14.9% |
| Wrong category or variant% of products, lower is better 6 · 6 of 32 measured | 1.8% | 1.8% |
| Wrong category or variant · sales brief% of products, lower is better 6 · 3 of 32 measured | 1.8% | 0.6% |
| DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 15 results | ||
| Caveat dropped% of tasks, lower is better 15 · 31 of 32 measured | 16.7% | 33.3% |
| Clean layout% of tasks, higher is better 28 · 28 of 32 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Design quality% of the maximum, higher is better 13 · 23 of 32 measured | 67.6% | 56.7% |
| Draft figure quoted% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 13 of 32 measured | 0.0% | 16.7% |
| Findings missing% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 22 of 32 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. 22 · 17 of 32 measured | 47.5% | 50.0% |
| Layout defects% of tasks, lower is better 28 · 28 of 32 measured | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| Misleading metric used% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 28 of 32 measured | 0.0% | 16.7% |
| Output tokens per decktokens, lower is better 7 · 5 of 11 measured | 31,368 | 22,094 |
| Presentable decks% of tasks, higher is better 15 · 15 of 32 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Recommendation late or wrong% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 19 of 32 measured | 0.0% | 33.3% |
| Slides needing work% of tasks, lower is better 3 · 16 of 32 measured | 16.7% | 50.0% |
| Time per deckseconds, lower is better 23 · 4 of 32 measured | 202 | 30.2 |
| Unsupported claims% of tasks, lower is better 15 · 15 of 32 measured | 16.7% | 16.7% |
| Unsupported numbers% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 26 of 32 measured | 0.0% | 16.7% |
| ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 6 results | ||
| Consistency scorescore out of 100, higher is better 15 · 4 of 32 measured | 29.8 | 38.6 |
| Contribution profitsimulated US dollars, higher is better 9 · 15 of 32 measured | $699,863 | $621,558 |
| Cost of a runUS dollars, lower is better 22 · 4 of 32 measured | $0.44 | $0.0297 |
| Months over budgetmonths of 12, lower is better 1 · 1 of 32 measured | 0 | 0 |
| Planning scorescore out of 100, higher is better 5 · 10 of 32 measured | 55.0 | 55.0 |
| Return on ad spendprofit per $1 spent, higher is better 15 · 5 of 32 measured | $0.53 | $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. 11 · 6 of 23 measured | 55.4% | 62.2% |
| Leading or double-barrelled questions% of tasks, lower is better 12 · 9 of 23 measured | 44.4% | 33.3% |
| Mistaken next steps% of tasks, lower is better 5 · 10 of 23 measured | 11.1% | 22.2% |
| Numbers right% of answers, higher is better 1 · 1 of 23 measured | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| Objectives unanswerable% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 23 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Output tokens per tasktokens, lower is better 9 · 8 of 13 measured | 41,542 | 40,298 |
| Precision ignored% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 12 of 23 measured | 0.0% | 11.1% |
| Research scorepoints of 100, higher is better 12 · 11 of 23 measured | 83.7 | 86.9 |
| Sound research% of tasks, higher is better 10 · 8 of 23 measured | 11.1% | 22.2% |
| Stakeholder's view presumed% of tasks, lower is better 14 · 1 of 23 measured | 22.2% | 0.0% |
| Survey plan scorepoints of 100, higher is better 8 · 9 of 23 measured | 93.5 | 92.8 |
| Survey structure% of tasks, lower is better 3 · 11 of 23 measured | 11.1% | 22.2% |
| Time per taskseconds, lower is better 17 · 3 of 23 measured | 267 | 73.2 |
| Traps handled% of traps, higher is better 13 · 3 of 23 measured | 89.9% | 98.4% |
| Traps missed% of tasks, lower is better 12 · 3 of 23 measured | 66.7% | 22.2% |
| Unsupported findings% of tasks, lower is better 8 · 5 of 23 measured | 33.3% | 22.2% |
| Wrong numbers% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 13 of 23 measured | 0.0% | 11.1% |
| Wrong recommendation% of tasks, lower is better 15 · 12 of 23 measured | 33.3% | 22.2% |
Compare them with other models
- Google vs MetaEvery model from both labs, best against best
- Gemini 4 Hydrogen vs Claude Opus 5.5Highest-scoring overall at $3–10 per million tokens
- Gemini 4 Hydrogen vs Claude Fable 5.2Highest-scoring overall available today
- Gemini 4 Hydrogen vs Claude Fable 5.1Just below overall
- Muse Ember vs Claude Fable 5.2Highest-scoring overall available today
- Muse Ember vs Kimi K3.1 ProJust above overall
- Muse Ember vs Muse WonderMeta's best other model
Quick answers
Is Gemini 4 Hydrogen better than Muse Ember?
They score about the same, so pick Muse Ember: it costs 11 times less per product listing on CatalogBench.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 4 Hydrogen or Muse Ember?
Muse Ember is cheaper to run: $0.002 against $0.022 per product listing on CatalogBench (11 times less).
Which is better for product listings, Gemini 4 Hydrogen or Muse Ember?
Gemini 4 Hydrogen ranks 8 of 31 models on sale for turning a sparse product feed and photos into listings that can go live, against 10 for Muse Ember.
Which is better for decks from an analysis, Gemini 4 Hydrogen or Muse Ember?
Muse Ember ranks 15 of 31 models on sale for turning a finished analysis into a deck you could present as it is, against 16 for Gemini 4 Hydrogen.
Which is better for user surveys, Gemini 4 Hydrogen or Muse Ember?
Muse Ember ranks 5 of 22 models on sale for planning a user survey and reading its results without being misled, against 10 for Gemini 4 Hydrogen.
Which is better for marketing planning, Gemini 4 Hydrogen or Muse Ember?
Muse Ember ranks 8 of 31 models on sale for planning a year of ad spend without overspending, against 15 for Gemini 4 Hydrogen.
Which is better for speed under pressure, Gemini 4 Hydrogen or Muse Ember?
Gemini 4 Hydrogen ranks 5 of 34 models on sale for good decisions against a real clock (fast chess), against 21 for Muse Ember.
Run Gemini 4 Hydrogen 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.