Compare / Muse Ember vs GPT-6 Sol
Muse Ember vs GPT-6 Sol
Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 62 results on 4 sources that measured both models.
MetaMuse Ember
OpenAIGPT-6 Sol
Muse Ember wins 1713 too close to callGPT-6 Sol wins 32
Of the 62 results both models have, the better value on each. Results whose reported ranges overlap are too close to call.
Results as of 11 November 2026 (catalogue release 2026-11-11-7ba7a6de390d). See also Meta vs OpenAI, every model from both labs.
Muse Ember or GPT-6 Sol? The short answer
They score about the same, so pick Muse Ember: it costs 4.2 times less per product listing on CatalogBench.
- Spring Prompt overall: Muse Ember 65, GPT-6 Sol 68 (out of 100; how the score works).
- Muse Ember is cheaper to run: $0.002 against $0.009 per product listing on CatalogBench (4.2 times less).
- Muse Ember is newer: released 9 Nov 2026, against 22 Sep 2026 for GPT-6 Sol.
- On our own benchmarks, on the results both models have: GPT-6 Sol does better for product listings, decks from an analysis and marketing planning.
Head to head
65
Spring Prompt overall
68
$0.20
Price per million tokens, blendedlower is better
$4.00
1,048,576
Context window, tokens
1,050,000
Every fact side by side
| Muse Ember | GPT-6 Sol | |
|---|---|---|
| Price per million tokens | $0.10 in · $0.50 out | $2.00 in · $10.00 out |
| Blended (3 in : 1 out) | $0.20 | $4.00 |
| Cheapest host, blended | – | $4.00 (Amazon Bedrock) |
| Cost per product listing (CatalogBench) | $0.002 | $0.009 |
| Cached input, per million | $0.004 cached input | $0.20 cached input |
| Intelligence Index | – | 47.6 |
| Spring Prompt overall | 65 | 68 |
| Output speed, tokens a second | – | – |
| Context window | 1,048,576 tokens | 1,050,000 tokens |
| Released | 9 Nov 2026 (newer) | 22 Sep 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
10 of 30
3 of 30
Decks from an analysisTurning a finished analysis into a deck you could present as it is
15 of 30
2 of 30
User surveysPlanning a user survey and reading its results without being misled
5 of 21
not measured
Marketing planningPlanning a year of ad spend without overspending
8 of 30
5 of 30
Agents and tool useMulti-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls
not measured
8 of 159
Professional workReal tasks from banking, consulting and law, business documents and freelance projects
not measured
13 of 51
Reasoning and knowledgeHard questions across science, maths and general knowledge
not measured
14 of 187
WritingWhat people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality
not measured
50 of 169
Sticking to the factsSummarising without inventing things, and factual answers
not measured
48 of 139
Speed under pressureGood decisions against a real clock (fast chess)
20 of 33
10 of 33
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 | Muse Ember | GPT-6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| BulletBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per game · Bullet 60sUS dollars, lower is better 13 · 33 of 39 measured | $0.0038minimal reasoning | $0.0297no reasoning |
| Ladder Elo · Bullet 60sladder Elo, higher is better 28 · 19 of 39 measured | 310minimal reasoning | 445no reasoning |
| Games lost on time · Bullet 60s% of games, lower is better 27 · 21 of 39 measured | 62.5%minimal reasoning | 50.0%no reasoning |
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per productUS dollars, lower is better 6 · 16 of 31 measured | $0.0020 | $0.0085 |
| Reliably publish-ready% of products, higher is better 11 · 4 of 30 measured | 53.6% | 66.1% |
| Reliably publish-ready · sales brief% of products, higher is better 9 · 2 of 30 measured | 35.7% | 67.9% |
| DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per deckUS dollars, lower is better 5 · 24 of 31 measured | $0.0112 | $0.21 |
| 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 · 2 of 31 measured | 1,188 | 1,470 |
| Accurate decks% of tasks, higher is better 9 · 5 of 31 measured | 66.7% | 83.3% |
| ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Overall scorescore out of 100, higher is better 8 · 5 of 31 measured | 51.8 | 54.1 |
| Audience scorescore out of 100, higher is better 19 · 2 of 31 measured | 60.6 | 69.4 |
| Business scorescore out of 100, higher is better 7 · 8 of 31 measured | 53.1 | 52.9 |
Show all 62 results (50 more)
| Measure | Muse Ember | GPT-6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| BulletBench measured by Spring Prompt · 2 results | ||
| Invalid moves · Bullet 60s% of moves, lower is better 1 · 1 of 39 measured | 0.0% | 0.0%no reasoning |
| Median move time · Bullet 60smilliseconds, lower is better 26 · 22 of 39 measured | 1.8 sminimal reasoning | 1.6 sno reasoning |
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 28 results | ||
| Channel compliance% of products, higher is better 1 · 1 of 31 measured | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| Channel rules broken% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 31 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Channel rules broken · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 17 of 31 measured | 0.0% | 0.6% |
| Claims to check% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 29 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Claims to check · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 29 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Conflicts caught% of conflicts, higher is better 1 · 1 of 31 measured | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| Content quality% of checks, higher is better 24 · 8 of 31 measured | 95.6% | 97.8% |
| Content quality · sales brief% of checks, higher is better 4 · 8 of 31 measured | 98.5% | 98.3% |
| Decision accuracy% of decisions, higher is better 21 · 7 of 31 measured | 95.8% | 98.0% |
| Failed outputs% of products, lower is better 29 · 1 of 31 measured | 2.4% | 0.0% |
| Failed outputs · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 31 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Field accuracy% of missing fields, higher is better 15 · 15 of 31 measured | 93.7% | 93.7% |
| Invented values% of filled values, lower is better 19 · 11 of 31 measured | 1.7% | 1.0% |
| Missing UK information% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 31 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Missing UK information · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 31 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Not findable% of products, lower is better 10 · 23 of 31 measured | 3.6% | 7.7% |
| Not findable · sales brief% of products, lower is better 15 · 25 of 31 measured | 3.6% | 7.1% |
| Publish-ready listings% of products, higher is better 8 · 5 of 31 measured | 71.4% | 75.0% |
| Publish-ready listings · sales brief% of products, higher is better 11 · 1 of 31 measured | 54.2% | 76.2% |
| Time per productseconds, lower is better 5 · 13 of 31 measured | 8.10 | 10.7 |
| Unsupported claims% of products, lower is better 7 · 5 of 31 measured | 7.1% | 1.8% |
| Unsupported claimsclaims per product, lower is better 8 · 5 of 31 measured | 0.29 | 0.08 |
| Unsupported claims · sales brief% of products, lower is better 12 · 4 of 31 measured | 33.3% | 3.0% |
| Unsupported claims · sales briefclaims per product, lower is better 10 · 3 of 31 measured | 0.69 | 0.09 |
| Wrong attributes% of products, lower is better 6 · 7 of 31 measured | 13.7% | 14.3% |
| Wrong attributes · sales brief% of products, lower is better 9 · 4 of 31 measured | 14.9% | 13.7% |
| Wrong category or variant% of products, lower is better 6 · 25 of 31 measured | 1.8% | 3.6% |
| Wrong category or variant · sales brief% of products, lower is better 3 · 21 of 31 measured | 0.6% | 3.0% |
| DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 14 results | ||
| Caveat dropped% of tasks, lower is better 30 · 1 of 31 measured | 33.3% | 0.0% |
| Clean layout% of tasks, higher is better 28 · 8 of 31 measured | 0.0% | 66.7% |
| Design quality% of the maximum, higher is better 22 · 2 of 31 measured | 56.7% | 87.9% |
| Draft figure quoted% of tasks, lower is better 12 · 1 of 31 measured | 16.7% | 0.0% |
| Findings missing% of tasks, lower is better 21 · 21 of 31 measured | 16.7% | 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. 16 · 2 of 31 measured | 51.8% | 88.1% |
| Layout defects% of tasks, lower is better 28 · 8 of 31 measured | 100.0% | 33.3% |
| Misleading metric used% of tasks, lower is better 27 · 1 of 31 measured | 16.7% | 0.0% |
| Presentable decks% of tasks, higher is better 15 · 3 of 31 measured | 0.0% | 50.0% |
| Recommendation late or wrong% of tasks, lower is better 18 · 1 of 31 measured | 33.3% | 0.0% |
| Slides needing work% of tasks, lower is better 15 · 1 of 31 measured | 50.0% | 0.0% |
| Time per deckseconds, lower is better 4 · 20 of 31 measured | 30.2 | 169 |
| Unsupported claims% of tasks, lower is better 15 · 1 of 31 measured | 16.7% | 0.0% |
| Unsupported numbers% of tasks, lower is better 25 · 1 of 31 measured | 16.7% | 0.0% |
| ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 6 results | ||
| Consistency scorescore out of 100, higher is better 4 · 3 of 31 measured | 38.6 | 42.9 |
| Contribution profitsimulated US dollars, higher is better 14 · 15 of 31 measured | $621,558 | $600,357 |
| Cost of a runUS dollars, lower is better 4 · 19 of 31 measured | $0.0297 | $0.24 |
| Months over budgetmonths of 12, lower is better 1 · 1 of 31 measured | 0 | 0 |
| Planning scorescore out of 100, higher is better 9 · 15 of 31 measured | 55.0 | 54.8 |
| Return on ad spendprofit per $1 spent, higher is better 5 · 10 of 31 measured | $0.70 | $0.65 |
Compare them with other models
- Meta vs OpenAIEvery model from both labs, best against best
- Muse Ember vs Claude Fable 5.2Highest-scoring overall available today
- Muse Ember vs Claude Fable 5.1Just below overall
- Muse Ember vs Muse WonderMeta's best other model
- GPT-6 Sol vs Claude Opus 5.5Most intelligent at $3–10 per million tokens
- GPT-6 Sol vs DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Cheapest with similar intelligence
- GPT-6 Sol vs Claude Fable 5.2Highest-scoring overall available today
Quick answers
Is Muse Ember better than GPT-6 Sol?
They score about the same, so pick Muse Ember: it costs 4.2 times less per product listing on CatalogBench.
Which is cheaper, Muse Ember or GPT-6 Sol?
Muse Ember is cheaper to run: $0.002 against $0.009 per product listing on CatalogBench (4.2 times less).
Which is better for product listings, Muse Ember or GPT-6 Sol?
GPT-6 Sol ranks 3 of 30 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, Muse Ember or GPT-6 Sol?
GPT-6 Sol ranks 2 of 30 models on sale for turning a finished analysis into a deck you could present as it is, against 15 for Muse Ember.
Which is better for marketing planning, Muse Ember or GPT-6 Sol?
GPT-6 Sol ranks 5 of 30 models on sale for planning a year of ad spend without overspending, against 8 for Muse Ember.
Which is better for speed under pressure, Muse Ember or GPT-6 Sol?
GPT-6 Sol ranks 10 of 33 models on sale for good decisions against a real clock (fast chess), against 20 for Muse Ember.
Which has the bigger context window, Muse Ember or GPT-6 Sol?
GPT-6 Sol: 1,050,000 tokens, against 1,048,576 for Muse Ember.
Run Muse Ember and GPT-6 Sol 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.