Compare / Muse Wonder vs GPT-5.4 nano
Muse Wonder vs GPT-5.4 nano
Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 10 results on 2 sources that measured both models.
Of the 10 results both models have, the better value on each. Results whose reported ranges overlap are too close to call.
Results as of 14 October 2026 (catalogue release 2026-10-14-7d7cf32c3f6d). See also Meta vs OpenAI, every model from both labs.
Muse Wonder or GPT-5.4 nano? The short answer
Pick Muse Wonder if quality matters most: it scores higher (Intelligence Index 52.4 against 20.7). Pick GPT-5.4 nano if cost matters more: it costs 13 times less per game of bullet chess on BulletBench.
- GPT-5.4 nano is cheaper to run: $0.005 against $0.066 per game of bullet chess on BulletBench (13 times less).
- Muse Wonder scores higher on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index: 52.4 against 20.7.
- Muse Wonder is newer: released 12 Oct 2026, against 17 Mar 2026 for GPT-5.4 nano.
- 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
Every fact side by side
| Muse Wonder | GPT-5.4 nano | |
|---|---|---|
| Price per million tokens | $4.00 in · $20.00 out | $0.20 in · $1.25 out |
| Blended (3 in : 1 out) | $8.00 | $0.46 |
| Cheapest host, blended | – | $0.46 (Azure) |
| Cost per game of bullet chess (BulletBench) | $0.066 | $0.005 |
| Cached input, per million | $0.20 cached input | $0.020 cached input |
| Intelligence Index | 52.4 | 20.7 |
| Spring Prompt overall | 71 | – |
| Output speed, tokens a second | 117 | – |
| Context window | 1,048,576 tokens | 400,000 tokens |
| Released | 12 Oct 2026 (newer) | 17 Mar 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.
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 Wonder | GPT-5.4 nano |
|---|---|---|
| BulletBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per game · Bullet 60sUS dollars, lower is better 29 · 12 of 30 measured | $0.0663minimal reasoning | $0.0050no reasoning |
| Ladder Elo · Bullet 60sladder Elo, higher is better 19 · 27 of 30 measured | 409minimal reasoning | 33no reasoning |
| Games lost on time · Bullet 60s% of games, lower is better 23 · 25 of 30 measured | 58.3%minimal reasoning | 66.7%no reasoning |
| Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 3 results | ||
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence Indexindex score, higher is better 6 · 102 of 244 measured | 52.4max reasoning | 20.7xhigh reasoning |
| Humanity's Last Exam% of questions, higher is better 9 · 82 of 243 measured | 50.1%max reasoning | 28.3%xhigh reasoning |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0% of tasks, higher is better 7 · 59 of 113 measured | 52.0%max reasoning | 0.5%xhigh reasoning |
Show all 10 results (4 more)
| Measure | Muse Wonder | GPT-5.4 nano |
|---|---|---|
| BulletBench measured by Spring Prompt · 2 results | ||
| Invalid moves · Bullet 60s% of moves, lower is better 1 · 29 of 30 measured | 0.0%minimal reasoning | 3.1%no reasoning |
| Median move time · Bullet 60smilliseconds, lower is better 25 · 15 of 30 measured | 1.9 sminimal reasoning | 1.1 sno reasoning |
| Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 2 results | ||
| Long-context reasoning (AA-LCR)% of questions, higher is better 33 · 72 of 234 measured | 80.7%max reasoning | 76.7%xhigh reasoning |
| SciCode% of problems, higher is better 7 · 57 of 114 measured | 60.3%max reasoning | 47.2%xhigh reasoning |
Compare them with other models
- Meta vs OpenAIEvery 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
- GPT-5.4 nano vs Claude Opus 5.5Most intelligent available today
Quick answers
Is Muse Wonder better than GPT-5.4 nano?
Pick Muse Wonder if quality matters most: it scores higher (Intelligence Index 52.4 against 20.7). Pick GPT-5.4 nano if cost matters more: it costs 13 times less per game of bullet chess on BulletBench.
Which is cheaper, Muse Wonder or GPT-5.4 nano?
GPT-5.4 nano is cheaper to run: $0.005 against $0.066 per game of bullet chess on BulletBench (13 times less).
Which is better for agents and tool use, Muse Wonder or GPT-5.4 nano?
Muse Wonder ranks 8 of 166 models on sale for multi-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls, against 66 for GPT-5.4 nano.
Which is better for reasoning and knowledge, Muse Wonder or GPT-5.4 nano?
Muse Wonder ranks 7 of 200 models on sale for hard questions across science, maths and general knowledge, against 91 for GPT-5.4 nano.
Which is better for speed under pressure, Muse Wonder or GPT-5.4 nano?
Muse Wonder ranks 12 of 25 models on sale for good decisions against a real clock (fast chess), against 21 for GPT-5.4 nano.
Which has the bigger context window, Muse Wonder or GPT-5.4 nano?
Muse Wonder: 1,048,576 tokens, against 400,000 for GPT-5.4 nano.
Run Muse Wonder and GPT-5.4 nano on your own prompt
Benchmarks aren't your data. Try both side by side in the playground, with the cost of every answer.