Compare / Muse Wonder vs MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Muse Wonder vs MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 82 results on 5 sources that measured both models.
MetaMuse Wonder
MiniMaxMiniMax M3.1 Flash
Muse Wonder wins 619 too close to callMiniMax M3.1 Flash wins 12
Of the 82 results both models have, the better value on each. Results whose reported ranges overlap are too close to call.
Results as of 20 October 2026 (catalogue release 2026-10-20-96eb40c3ec63). See also Meta vs MiniMax, every model from both labs.
Muse Wonder or MiniMax M3.1 Flash? The short answer
Pick Muse Wonder if quality matters most: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 72 against 47). Pick MiniMax M3.1 Flash if cost matters more: it costs 30 times less per token.
- Spring Prompt overall: Muse Wonder 72, MiniMax M3.1 Flash 47 (out of 100; how the score works).
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash is cheaper: $0.26 against $8.00 per million tokens, 30 times less.
- Muse Wonder scores higher on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index: 52.4 against 42.4.
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash is newer: released 19 Oct 2026, against 12 Oct 2026 for Muse Wonder.
- On our own benchmarks, on the results both models have: Muse Wonder does better for product listings, decks from an analysis and user surveys; MiniMax M3.1 Flash for marketing planning.
- On third-party benchmarks, on the results both models have: Muse Wonder does better for agents and tool use and reasoning and knowledge.
Head to head
72
Spring Prompt overall
47
52.4
Intelligence Index
42.4
$8.00
Price per million tokens, blendedlower is better
$0.26
153
Output speed, tokens a second
159
1,048,576
Context window, tokens
1,048,576
Every fact side by side
| Muse Wonder | MiniMax M3.1 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Price per million tokens | $4.00 in · $20.00 out | $0.15 in · $0.60 out |
| Blended (3 in : 1 out) | $8.00 | $0.26 |
| Cheapest host, blended | – | – |
| Cached input, per million | $0.20 cached input | $0.015 cached input |
| Intelligence Index | 52.4 | 42.4 |
| Spring Prompt overall | 72 | 47 |
| Output speed, tokens a second | 153 | 159 |
| Context window | 1,048,576 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens |
| Released | 12 Oct 2026 | 19 Oct 2026 (newer) |
| Weights | Closed | Closed |
| Developer based in | the US | China |
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
4 of 24
7 of 24
Decks from an analysisTurning a finished analysis into a deck you could present as it is
9 of 24
14 of 24
User surveysPlanning a user survey and reading its results without being misled
2 of 13
13 of 13
Marketing planningPlanning a year of ad spend without overspending
13 of 24
12 of 24
Agents and tool useMulti-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls
8 of 168
32 of 168
Reasoning and knowledgeHard questions across science, maths and general knowledge
7 of 202
18 of 202
Speed under pressureGood decisions against a real clock (fast chess)
13 of 27
not measured
From our research
- AI Checkpoint: Argon matches Opus, until it sells 16 Oct 2026
- Claude Opus 5.5 vs Muse Wonder Full: Eight Crafts, and Opus Still Wins Most 13 Oct 2026
- Muse Wonder review: good analysis, work that still needs checking 13 Oct 2026
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash first look: careful with product data, unreliable on long jobs 19 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 | Muse Wonder | MiniMax M3.1 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per productUS dollars, lower is better 20 · 1 of 24 measured | $0.0361 | $0 |
| Reliably publish-ready% of products, higher is better 3 · 9 of 24 measured | 66.1% | 50.0% |
| Reliably publish-ready · sales brief% of products, higher is better 4 · 6 of 24 measured | 51.8% | 37.5% |
| DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per deckUS dollars, lower is better 18 · 1 of 24 measured | $0.18 | $0 |
| 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. 9 · 14 of 24 measured | 1,305 | 1,090 |
| Accurate decks% of tasks, higher is better 1 · 9 of 24 measured | 100.0% | 50.0% |
| ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Overall scorescore out of 100, higher is better 13 · 12 of 24 measured | 38.9 | 40.3 |
| Audience scorescore out of 100, higher is better 15 · 12 of 24 measured | 54.7 | 60.8 |
| Business scorescore out of 100, higher is better 13 · 10 of 24 measured | 34.5 | 38.9 |
| 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. 2 · 13 of 13 measured | 1,498 | 441 |
| Analysis scorepoints of 100, higher is better 2 · 13 of 13 measured | 96.2 | 7.90 |
| 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. 3 · 13 of 13 measured | 77.5% | 15.9% |
| Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 3 results | ||
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence Indexindex score, higher is better 6 · 21 of 249 measured | 52.4max reasoning | 42.4 |
| Humanity's Last Exam% of questions, higher is better 9 · 14 of 248 measured | 50.1%max reasoning | 48.0% |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0% of tasks, higher is better 7 · 22 of 118 measured | 52.0%max reasoning | 25.8% |
Show all 82 results (67 more)
| Measure | Muse Wonder | MiniMax M3.1 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 28 results | ||
| Channel compliance% of products, higher is better 17 · 1 of 24 measured | 99.4% | 100.0% |
| Channel rules broken% of products, lower is better 12 · 12 of 24 measured | 0.6% | 0.6% |
| Channel rules broken · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Claims to check% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Claims to check · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Conflicts caught% of conflicts, higher is better 1 · 1 of 24 measured | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| Content quality% of checks, higher is better 3 · 17 of 24 measured | 98.3% | 95.8% |
| Content quality · sales brief% of checks, higher is better 3 · 17 of 24 measured | 98.5% | 96.0% |
| Decision accuracy% of decisions, higher is better 3 · 16 of 24 measured | 98.3% | 95.6% |
| Failed outputs% of products, lower is better 1 · 22 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 1.8% |
| Failed outputs · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 22 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 1.8% |
| Field accuracy% of missing fields, higher is better 1 · 19 of 24 measured | 96.1% | 92.0% |
| Invented values% of filled values, lower is better 11 · 22 of 24 measured | 1.4% | 3.8% |
| Missing UK information% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Missing UK information · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Not findable% of products, lower is better 5 · 16 of 24 measured | 3.6% | 7.1% |
| Not findable · sales brief% of products, lower is better 10 · 12 of 24 measured | 3.6% | 4.2% |
| Publish-ready listings% of products, higher is better 3 · 11 of 24 measured | 75.0% | 63.1% |
| Publish-ready listings · sales brief% of products, higher is better 5 · 7 of 24 measured | 67.3% | 57.1% |
| Time per productseconds, lower is better 9 · 19 of 24 measured | 10.2 | 32.0 |
| Unsupported claimsclaims per product, lower is better 4 · 6 of 24 measured | 0.21 | 0.39 |
| Unsupported claims% of products, lower is better 4 · 5 of 24 measured | 7.1% | 7.7% |
| Unsupported claims · sales briefclaims per product, lower is better 5 · 6 of 24 measured | 0.36 | 0.60 |
| Unsupported claims · sales brief% of products, lower is better 6 · 5 of 24 measured | 17.9% | 16.1% |
| Wrong attributes% of products, lower is better 2 · 20 of 24 measured | 13.1% | 22.6% |
| Wrong attributes · sales brief% of products, lower is better 4 · 20 of 24 measured | 14.3% | 21.4% |
| Wrong category or variant% of products, lower is better 12 · 20 of 24 measured | 2.4% | 4.2% |
| Wrong category or variant · sales brief% of products, lower is better 12 · 21 of 24 measured | 2.4% | 4.8% |
| DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 14 results | ||
| Caveat dropped% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 24 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 33.3% |
| Clean layout% of tasks, higher is better 20 · 23 of 24 measured | 16.7% | 0.0% |
| Design quality% of the maximum, higher is better 10 · 21 of 24 measured | 67.1% | 46.2% |
| Draft figure quoted% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 12 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 33.3% |
| Findings missing% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 24 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 50.0% |
| 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. 10 · 15 of 24 measured | 65.9% | 48.6% |
| Layout defects% of tasks, lower is better 20 · 23 of 24 measured | 83.3% | 100.0% |
| Misleading metric used% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 24 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 33.3% |
| Presentable decks% of tasks, higher is better 10 · 12 of 24 measured | 16.7% | 0.0% |
| Recommendation late or wrong% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 13 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 33.3% |
| Slides needing work% of tasks, lower is better 16 · 21 of 24 measured | 66.7% | 83.3% |
| Time per deckseconds, lower is better 3 · 20 of 24 measured | 28.6 | 330 |
| Unsupported claims% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 21 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 50.0% |
| Unsupported numbers% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 24 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 50.0% |
| ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 6 results | ||
| Consistency scorescore out of 100, higher is better 13 · 17 of 24 measured | 25.9 | 17.3 |
| Contribution profitsimulated US dollars, higher is better 14 · 5 of 24 measured | $489,176 | $693,379 |
| Cost of a runUS dollars, lower is better 19 · 1 of 24 measured | $0.57 | $0 |
| Months over budgetmonths of 12, lower is better 1 · 1 of 24 measured | 0 | 0 |
| Planning scorescore out of 100, higher is better 5 · 21 of 24 measured | 55.0 | 54.2 |
| Return on ad spendprofit per $1 spent, higher is better 14 · 9 of 24 measured | $0.41 | $0.52 |
| SurveyBench measured by Spring Prompt · 15 results | ||
| Leading or double-barrelled questions% of tasks, lower is better 6 · 12 of 13 measured | 44.4% | 77.8% |
| Mistaken next steps% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 13 of 13 measured | 0.0% | 100.0% |
| Numbers right% of answers, higher is better 1 · 1 of 13 measured | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| Objectives unanswerable% of tasks, lower is better 7 · 13 of 13 measured | 11.1% | 66.7% |
| Precision ignored% of tasks, lower is better 7 · 10 of 13 measured | 22.2% | 66.7% |
| Research scorepoints of 100, higher is better 3 · 13 of 13 measured | 93.6 | 16.4 |
| Sound research% of tasks, higher is better 3 · 6 of 13 measured | 33.3% | 0.0% |
| Stakeholder's view presumed% of tasks, lower is better 5 · 12 of 13 measured | 11.1% | 55.6% |
| Survey plan scorepoints of 100, higher is better 8 · 13 of 13 measured | 87.8 | 36.1 |
| Survey structure% of tasks, lower is better 10 · 13 of 13 measured | 33.3% | 77.8% |
| Traps handled% of traps, higher is better 1 · 8 of 13 measured | 100.0% | 75.0% |
| Traps missed% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 10 of 13 measured | 0.0% | 100.0% |
| Unsupported findings% of tasks, lower is better 2 · 10 of 13 measured | 11.1% | 100.0% |
| Wrong numbers% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 10 of 13 measured | 0.0% | 88.9% |
| Wrong recommendation% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 13 of 13 measured | 0.0% | 100.0% |
| Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 4 results | ||
| Long-context reasoning (AA-LCR)% of questions, higher is better 34 · 45 of 239 measured | 80.7%max reasoning | 79.7% |
| Output speedtokens per second, higher is better 24 · 21 of 78 measured | 153max reasoning | 159 |
| SciCode% of problems, higher is better 7 · 36 of 119 measured | 60.3%max reasoning | 53.4% |
| Time to first answer tokenseconds, lower is better 74 · 51 of 78 measured | 48.2max reasoning | 13.3 |
Compare them with other models
- Meta vs MiniMaxEvery model from both labs, best against best
- Muse Wonder vs Claude Opus 5.5Most intelligent at $3–10 per million tokens
- Muse Wonder vs Claude Sonnet 5.5Cheapest with similar intelligence
- Muse Wonder vs Gemini 4 ArgonJust above overall
- Muse Wonder vs GPT-6 SolJust below overall
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash vs Claude Haiku 5.5Cheapest with similar intelligence
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash vs DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashFastest with similar intelligence
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash vs Claude Opus 5.5Most intelligent available today
Quick answers
Is Muse Wonder better than MiniMax M3.1 Flash?
Pick Muse Wonder if quality matters most: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 72 against 47). Pick MiniMax M3.1 Flash if cost matters more: it costs 30 times less per token.
Which is cheaper, Muse Wonder or MiniMax M3.1 Flash?
MiniMax M3.1 Flash is cheaper: $0.26 against $8.00 per million tokens, 30 times less.
Which is faster, Muse Wonder or MiniMax M3.1 Flash?
MiniMax M3.1 Flash writes about 159 tokens a second on its usual API, against 153 for Muse Wonder (Artificial Analysis).
Which is better for product listings, Muse Wonder or MiniMax M3.1 Flash?
Muse Wonder ranks 4 of 24 models on sale for turning a sparse product feed and photos into listings that can go live, against 7 for MiniMax M3.1 Flash.
Which is better for decks from an analysis, Muse Wonder or MiniMax M3.1 Flash?
Muse Wonder ranks 9 of 24 models on sale for turning a finished analysis into a deck you could present as it is, against 14 for MiniMax M3.1 Flash.
Which is better for user surveys, Muse Wonder or MiniMax M3.1 Flash?
Muse Wonder ranks 2 of 13 models on sale for planning a user survey and reading its results without being misled, against 13 for MiniMax M3.1 Flash.
Which is better for marketing planning, Muse Wonder or MiniMax M3.1 Flash?
MiniMax M3.1 Flash ranks 12 of 24 models on sale for planning a year of ad spend without overspending, against 13 for Muse Wonder.
Run Muse Wonder and MiniMax M3.1 Flash on your own prompt
Benchmarks aren't your data. Try both side by side in the playground, with the cost of every answer.