Compare / Muse Wonder vs GLM-5.3
Muse Wonder vs GLM-5.3
Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 14 results on 2 sources that measured both models.
Of the 14 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). See also Meta vs Z.ai, every model from both labs.
Muse Wonder or GLM-5.3? The short answer
Pick Muse Wonder if quality matters most: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 70 against 38). Pick GLM-5.3 if cost matters more: it costs 4.3 times less per game of bullet chess on BulletBench.
- Spring Prompt overall: Muse Wonder 70, GLM-5.3 38 (out of 100; how the score works).
- GLM-5.3 is cheaper to run: $0.016 against $0.066 per game of bullet chess on BulletBench (4.3 times less).
- Muse Wonder is newer: released 12 Oct 2026, against 14 Aug 2026 for GLM-5.3.
- On our own benchmarks, on the results both models have: Muse Wonder does better for marketing planning.
Head to head
Every fact side by side
| Muse Wonder | GLM-5.3 | |
|---|---|---|
| Price per million tokens | $4.00 in · $20.00 out | $1.40 in · $4.40 out |
| Blended (3 in : 1 out) | $8.00 | $2.15 |
| Cheapest host, blended | – | $0.65 (Novita, FP8) |
| Cost per game of bullet chess (BulletBench) | $0.066 | $0.016 |
| Cached input, per million | $0.20 cached input | $0.26 cached input |
| Intelligence Index | – | 44.8 |
| Spring Prompt overall | 70 | 38 |
| Output speed, tokens a second | – | 76 |
| Context window | 1,048,576 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens |
| Released | 12 Oct 2026 (newer) | 14 Aug 2026 |
| Weights | Closed | Open |
| 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.
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 | GLM-5.3 |
|---|---|---|
| BulletBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per game · Bullet 60sUS dollars, lower is better 28 · 19 of 29 measured | $0.0663minimal reasoning | $0.0156 |
| Ladder Elo · Bullet 60sladder Elo, higher is better 19 · 26 of 29 measured | 409minimal reasoning | 33 |
| Games lost on time · Bullet 60s% of games, lower is better 23 · 27 of 29 measured | 58.3%minimal reasoning | 83.3%low reasoning |
| ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Overall scorescore out of 100, higher is better 10 · 17 of 20 measured | 38.9 | 24.8 |
| Audience scorescore out of 100, higher is better 12 · 14 of 20 measured | 54.7 | 51.0 |
| Business scorescore out of 100, higher is better 10 · 17 of 20 measured | 34.5 | 12.9 |
Show all 14 results (8 more)
| Measure | Muse Wonder | GLM-5.3 |
|---|---|---|
| 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% |
| Median move time · Bullet 60smilliseconds, lower is better 25 · 22 of 29 measured | 1.9 sminimal reasoning | 1.6 slow reasoning |
| ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 6 results | ||
| Consistency scorescore out of 100, higher is better 12 · 16 of 20 measured | 25.9 | 14.8 |
| Contribution profitsimulated US dollars, higher is better 11 · 18 of 20 measured | $489,176 | $9,718 |
| Cost of a runUS dollars, lower is better 15 · 6 of 20 measured | $0.57 | $0.13 |
| Months over budgetmonths of 12, lower is better 1 · 1 of 20 measured | 0 | 0 |
| Planning scorescore out of 100, higher is better 4 · 20 of 20 measured | 55.0 | 51.7 |
| Return on ad spendprofit per $1 spent, higher is better 11 · 18 of 20 measured | $0.41 | $0.01 |
Compare them with other models
- Meta vs Z.aiEvery model from both labs, best against best
- Muse Wonder vs Claude Opus 5.5Highest-scoring overall at $3–10 per million tokens
- Muse Wonder vs GPT-6 AstraJust above overall
- Muse Wonder vs GPT-6 SolJust below overall
- Muse Wonder vs Muse Spark 1.3Meta's best other model
- GLM-5.3 vs Muse Spark 1.3Most intelligent at $1–3 per million tokens
- GLM-5.3 vs Claude Haiku 5.5Cheapest with similar intelligence
- GLM-5.3 vs Claude Opus 5.5Most intelligent available today
Quick answers
Is Muse Wonder better than GLM-5.3?
Pick Muse Wonder if quality matters most: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 70 against 38). Pick GLM-5.3 if cost matters more: it costs 4.3 times less per game of bullet chess on BulletBench.
Which is cheaper, Muse Wonder or GLM-5.3?
GLM-5.3 is cheaper to run: $0.016 against $0.066 per game of bullet chess on BulletBench (4.3 times less).
Which is better for marketing planning, Muse Wonder or GLM-5.3?
Muse Wonder ranks 10 of 20 models on sale for planning a year of ad spend without overspending, against 17 for GLM-5.3.
Which is better for speed under pressure, Muse Wonder or GLM-5.3?
Muse Wonder ranks 12 of 24 models on sale for good decisions against a real clock (fast chess), against 21 for GLM-5.3.
Run Muse Wonder and GLM-5.3 on your own prompt
Benchmarks aren't your data. Try both side by side in the playground, with the cost of every answer.