Compare / Muse Spark 1.3 vs Muse Wonder

Muse Spark 1.3 vs Muse Wonder

Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 60 results on 4 sources that measured both models.

MetaMuse Spark 1.3 Released 2 Sep 2026 · $1.25 in · $4.25 out
MetaMuse Wonder Released 12 Oct 2026 · $4.00 in · $20.00 out
Muse Spark 1.3 wins 915 too close to callMuse Wonder wins 36

Of the 60 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).

Muse Spark 1.3 or Muse Wonder? The short answer

Pick Muse Wonder if quality matters most: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 70 against 64). Pick Muse Spark 1.3 if cost matters more: it costs 2.2 times less per product listing on CatalogBench.

  • Spring Prompt overall: Muse Spark 1.3 64, Muse Wonder 70 (out of 100; how the score works).
  • Muse Spark 1.3 is cheaper to run: $0.016 against $0.036 per product listing on CatalogBench (2.2 times less).
  • Muse Wonder is newer: released 12 Oct 2026, against 2 Sep 2026 for Muse Spark 1.3.
  • On our own benchmarks, on the results both models have: Muse Wonder does better for product listings, decks from an analysis and marketing planning.

Head to head

64
Spring Prompt overall
70
$2.00
Price per million tokens, blendedlower is better
$8.00
1,048,576
Context window, tokens
1,048,576

Every fact side by side

Muse Spark 1.3Muse Wonder
Price per million tokens$1.25 in · $4.25 out$4.00 in · $20.00 out
Blended (3 in : 1 out)$2.00$8.00
Cheapest host, blended––
Cost per product listing (CatalogBench)$0.016$0.036
Cached input, per million$0.15 cached input$0.20 cached input
Intelligence Index48.1–
Spring Prompt overall6470
Output speed, tokens a second114–
Context window1,048,576 tokens1,048,576 tokens
Released2 Sep 202612 Oct 2026 (newer)
WeightsClosedClosed
Developer based inthe USthe 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 21 4 of 21
Decks from an analysisTurning a finished analysis into a deck you could present as it is 13 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 13 of 20 10 of 20
Agents and tool useMulti-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls 9 of 164 not measured
Professional workReal tasks from banking, consulting and law, business documents and freelance projects 8 of 51 not measured
Reasoning and knowledgeHard questions across science, maths and general knowledge 8 of 198 not measured
WritingWhat people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality 5 of 188 not measured
Sticking to the factsSummarising without inventing things, and factual answers 11 of 152 not measured
Speed under pressureGood decisions against a real clock (fast chess) 21 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.

First slide of Muse Spark 1.3's deck for Hearthside Coffee
Muse Spark 1.3 · deck rating 879 · needs work
First slide of Muse Wonder's deck for Hearthside Coffee
Muse Wonder · deck rating 1,273 · needs work

Every slide, side by side →

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.

MeasureMuse Spark 1.3Muse Wonder
BulletBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results
Cost per game · Bullet 60sUS dollars, lower is better 17 · 28 of 29 measured $0.0142minimal reasoning $0.0663minimal reasoning
Ladder Elo · Bullet 60sladder Elo, higher is better 26 · 19 of 29 measured 33minimal reasoning 409minimal reasoning
Games lost on time · Bullet 60s% of games, lower is better 28 · 23 of 29 measured 91.7%minimal reasoning 58.3%minimal reasoning
CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results
Cost per productUS dollars, lower is better 12 · 17 of 21 measured $0.0164 $0.0361
Reliably publish-ready% of products, higher is better 8 · 3 of 21 measured 48.2% 66.1%
Reliably publish-ready · sales brief% of products, higher is better 10 · 4 of 21 measured 10.7% 51.8%
DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results
Cost per deckUS dollars, lower is better 7 · 14 of 20 measured $0.0463 $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. 13 · 8 of 20 measured 879 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 13 · 10 of 20 measured 34.1 38.9
Audience scorescore out of 100, higher is better 13 · 12 of 20 measured 51.6 54.7
Business scorescore out of 100, higher is better 13 · 10 of 20 measured 25.8 34.5
Show all 60 results (48 more)
MeasureMuse Spark 1.3Muse Wonder
BulletBench measured by Spring Prompt · 2 results
Invalid moves · Bullet 60s% of moves, lower is better 1 · 1 of 29 measured 0.0%minimal reasoning 0.0%minimal reasoning
Median move time · Bullet 60smilliseconds, lower is better 29 · 25 of 29 measured 4.2 sminimal reasoning 1.9 sminimal reasoning
CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 27 results
Channel compliance% of products, higher is better 1 · 14 of 21 measured 100.0% 99.4%
Channel rules broken% of products, lower is better 1 · 11 of 21 measured 0.0% 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 1 · 1 of 21 measured 0.0% 0.0%
Claims to check · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 21 measured 0.0% 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 7 · 3 of 21 measured 97.7% 98.3%
Content quality · sales brief% of checks, higher is better 5 · 3 of 21 measured 98.2% 98.5%
Decision accuracy% of decisions, higher is better 6 · 3 of 21 measured 97.6% 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 12 · 1 of 21 measured 92.9% 96.1%
Invented values% of filled values, lower is better 5 · 11 of 21 measured 0.7% 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 12 · 4 of 21 measured 6.0% 3.6%
Not findable · sales brief% of products, lower is better 11 · 8 of 21 measured 5.4% 3.6%
Publish-ready listings% of products, higher is better 8 · 3 of 21 measured 65.5% 75.0%
Publish-ready listings · sales brief% of products, higher is better 8 · 5 of 21 measured 34.5% 67.3%
Unsupported claimsclaims per product, lower is better 6 · 4 of 21 measured 0.44 0.21
Unsupported claims% of products, lower is better 8 · 4 of 21 measured 14.9% 7.1%
Unsupported claims · sales briefclaims per product, lower is better 9 · 5 of 21 measured 1.50 0.36
Unsupported claims · sales brief% of products, lower is better 9 · 5 of 21 measured 57.7% 17.9%
Wrong attributes% of products, lower is better 9 · 2 of 21 measured 16.7% 13.1%
Wrong attributes · sales brief% of products, lower is better 4 · 4 of 21 measured 14.3% 14.3%
Wrong category or variant% of products, lower is better 18 · 10 of 21 measured 4.2% 2.4%
Wrong category or variant · sales brief% of products, lower is better 17 · 10 of 21 measured 3.6% 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 20 · 18 of 20 measured 0.0% 16.7%
Design quality% of the maximum, higher is better 15 · 9 of 20 measured 56.1% 67.1%
Draft figure quoted% of tasks, lower is better 9 · 1 of 20 measured 16.7% 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. 13 · 10 of 20 measured 43.7% 63.2%
Layout defects% of tasks, lower is better 20 · 18 of 20 measured 100.0% 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 12 · 10 of 20 measured 0.0% 16.7%
Recommendation late or wrong% of tasks, lower is better 17 · 1 of 20 measured 66.7% 0.0%
Slides needing work% of tasks, lower is better 10 · 15 of 20 measured 50.0% 66.7%
Unsupported claims% of tasks, lower is better 11 · 1 of 20 measured 16.7% 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 11 · 12 of 20 measured 26.7 25.9
Contribution profitsimulated US dollars, higher is better 12 · 11 of 20 measured $337,251 $489,176
Cost of a runUS dollars, lower is better 9 · 15 of 20 measured $0.18 $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 8 · 4 of 20 measured 54.8 55.0
Return on ad spendprofit per $1 spent, higher is better 12 · 11 of 20 measured $0.29 $0.41

Quick answers

Is Muse Spark 1.3 better than Muse Wonder?

Pick Muse Wonder if quality matters most: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 70 against 64). Pick Muse Spark 1.3 if cost matters more: it costs 2.2 times less per product listing on CatalogBench.

Which is cheaper, Muse Spark 1.3 or Muse Wonder?

Muse Spark 1.3 is cheaper to run: $0.016 against $0.036 per product listing on CatalogBench (2.2 times less).

Which is better for product listings, Muse Spark 1.3 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 10 for Muse Spark 1.3.

Which is better for decks from an analysis, Muse Spark 1.3 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 13 for Muse Spark 1.3.

Which is better for marketing planning, Muse Spark 1.3 or Muse Wonder?

Muse Wonder ranks 10 of 20 models on sale for planning a year of ad spend without overspending, against 13 for Muse Spark 1.3.

Which is better for speed under pressure, Muse Spark 1.3 or Muse Wonder?

Muse Wonder ranks 12 of 24 models on sale for good decisions against a real clock (fast chess), against 21 for Muse Spark 1.3.

Run Muse Spark 1.3 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.

Try the playgroundTalk to us