Models / Muse Ember

Meta

Muse Ember

Muse Ember is best for user surveys and marketing planning; a strong pick at a modest price.

Results 10 Nov 2026 · 95 results · 5 sources

Price per million tokens
$0.10 in · $0.50 out
Meta's list price, 10 Nov 2026 · compare prices$0.00 cached input
Speed
Not measured
Intelligence Index
Not measured
Spring Prompt overall
10th of 33 score 65 of 100 · how it works
Spring Prompt Score
63 of 100 9th of 29 · 5 of 5 benchmarks · our own tests only
Developer
Meta, based in the US
Weights not published
Released
9 Nov 2026
1,048,576 tokens of context
Pricing and availability
Requests with more than 200,000 input tokens are billed in full at $0.30 input and $1.50 output.

Where it stands among the models you could choose

Available models grouped by price, intelligence, speed and developer location. Retired models are excluded.

AmongIntelligence IndexSpring Prompt overallPrice, blendedSpeed
Models available today – 11th of 32Claude Fable 5.2 $0.20 blended, 18th percentilecheapest: Mistral Nemo –
Models priced under $0.25 per million tokens – 1st of 4leads sets this group –
Models from developers based in the US – 10th of 19Claude Fable 5.2 $0.20 blended, 19th percentilecheapest: Gemma 3 4B –

The name under each rank is the leader of that group; green is the top quarter of the group and red the bottom quarter, by rank. Price is shown as a percentile: the share of the group that costs less, so lower is cheaper. "Sets this group" marks the measure the group is defined by. Spring Prompt overall is our score out of 100 across every source (how it works). Price is the developer's list price (or the typical OpenRouter host where we haven't read one) for three input tokens to one output; intelligence and speed are from Artificial Analysis (data sourced from Artificial Analysis); "similar intelligence" means within 4 points on its Intelligence Index. Developer locations are where each company is based, not where a model is served. Groups under 3 models are not ranked.

Measured cost per task

API cost recorded in our benchmark runs, excluding judging.

TaskBenchmarkCost per task
Product listingCatalogBench≈ $0.002
DeckDeckBench≈ $0.011
Survey plan and analysisSurveyBench≈ $0.021
Game of bullet chessBulletBench≈ $0.004

Cheapest model that passes

On our benchmarks that define a pass for each task: what one passing answer cost in our run, failed attempts included, and whether a cheaper model passed.

  • CatalogBench · cost per 1,000 accepted listings
    Muse Ember passed 120 of 168 attempts, with no estimate: failed-call costs incomplete. Cheapest: GPT-6 Luna at $0.70 (114 of 168 attempts).
  • DeckBench · cost per presentable deck
    Muse Ember: no presentable decks (0 of 6 tasks). Cheapest: GPT-6.1 Terra at $0.13 (3 of 6 tasks).
  • SurveyBench · cost per sound survey task
    Muse Ember passed 2 of 9 tasks, with no estimate: failed-call costs incomplete. Cheapest: GPT-6 Luna at $0.03 (3 of 9 tasks).

Cost per attempt divided by the share that passed, at the run date's prices, excluding judging. Each model at its cheapest setting per passing answer. With a handful of tasks, a pass or two either way is within chance. No estimate where a run had missing outputs, because their cost may not have been recorded.

How good is it, and for what?

Each use case ranks the available models its benchmarks measured, then those priced under $0.25 per million tokens. The bar shows its percentile in that field, best to the right. Open a row for the results behind it.

Product listingsTurning a sparse product feed and photos into listings that can go live 9th of 29 available · 2nd of 4 at its price
BenchmarkMuse EmberRank among availableBest available
CatalogBenchCatalogBench: reliably publish-ready 53.6% 11th of 29 GPT-6 Astra 75.0%
CatalogBenchCatalogBench (sales brief): reliably publish-ready 35.7% 9th of 29 GPT-6 Astra 69.6%
Decks from an analysisTurning a finished analysis into a deck you could present as it is 15th of 29 available · 2nd of 4 at its price
BenchmarkMuse EmberRank among availableBest available
DeckBenchDeckBench: deck rating 1,193 15th of 29 GPT-6 Astra 1,588
User surveysPlanning a user survey and reading its results without being misled 5th of 20 available · 1st of 4 at its price
BenchmarkMuse EmberRank among availableBest available
SurveyBenchSurveyBench: analysis rating 1,392 5th of 20 Claude Fable 5.2 1,664
Marketing planningPlanning a year of ad spend without overspending 8th of 29 available · 2nd of 4 at its price
BenchmarkMuse EmberRank among availableBest available
ROASBenchROASBench: overall score 51.8 8th of 29 Claude Fable 5.2 61.3
Agents and tool useMulti-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls PendingReleased after these sources last updated
  • tau2-bench: pending. Its latest results are dated 26 May 2026, before this model was released.
  • Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4: pending. Its latest results are dated 16 Dec 2025, before this model was released.
  • OpenHands Index: pending. Its latest results are dated 30 Jun 2026, before this model was released.
  • Microsoft STATE-Bench: pending. Its latest results are dated 29 May 2026, before this model was released.
  • Artificial Analysis: has not measured this model.
  • Vending-Bench 2: pending. Its latest results are dated 1 Oct 2026, before this model was released.
Professional workReal tasks from banking, consulting and law, business documents and freelance projects PendingReleased after these sources last updated
  • APEX-Agents: pending. Its latest results are dated 1 Oct 2026, before this model was released.
  • GDP.pdf: pending. Its latest results are dated 1 Oct 2026, before this model was released.
  • Remote Labor Index: pending. Its latest results are dated 1 Oct 2026, before this model was released.
Reasoning and knowledgeHard questions across science, maths and general knowledge PendingReleased after these sources last updated
  • Artificial Analysis: pending. Its latest results are dated 20 Oct 2026, before this model was released.
WritingWhat people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality PendingReleased after these sources last updated
  • Arena (formerly LMArena): pending. Its latest results are dated 2 Oct 2026, before this model was released.
  • UGI Leaderboard: pending. Its latest results are dated 2 Oct 2026, before this model was released.
Sticking to the factsSummarising without inventing things, and factual answers PendingReleased after these sources last updated
  • Vectara Hallucination Leaderboard: pending. Its latest results are dated 22 Sep 2026, before this model was released.
  • Arena (formerly LMArena): pending. Its latest results are dated 2 Oct 2026, before this model was released.
  • SimpleQA Verified (Epoch AI): pending. Its latest results are dated 29 Sep 2026, before this model was released.
Speed under pressureGood decisions against a real clock (fast chess) 19th of 32 available · 2nd of 4 at its price
BenchmarkMuse EmberRank among availableBest available
BulletBenchBulletBench Bullet 60s: ladder Elo 310 19th of 30 Gemini 3.8 Flash 1,068

Nearest alternatives

  • The most capable open-weights modelMiMo-V2.6-Pro$0.54 blended · Intelligence Index 46.3

Against Muse Ember at $0.20 blended. "Similar intelligence" means within 4 points or better.

Where to run it

1 host on OpenRouter at the standard service tier, with a median of $0.20 blended per million tokens. Cheapest first.

HostQuantisationInputOutputBlended
Metanot stated$0.10$0.50$0.20

Prices per million tokens from OpenRouter's public endpoint list, checked 10 Nov 2026.

Against the alternatives

The models you would most likely weigh it against: the leaders of the groups above.

Scroll sideways to see every alternative.

Muse EmberClaude Fable 5.2
highest-scoring overall available today
Claude Fable 5.1
just above overall
Claude Sonnet 5.5
just below overall
Muse Wonder
Meta's best other model
Price per million tokens $0.20 $16.00$20.00$4.00$8.00
Tokens a second – –72137153
Intelligence Index – –53.456.052.4
Spring Prompt overall 65 90656169
Rank among available models, by use case
Product listings 9th of 29 5th20th16th5th
Decks from an analysis 15th of 29 3rd9th6th13th
User surveys 5th of 20 1st––2nd
Marketing planning 8th of 29 1st10th7th19th
Agents and tool use pending –19th2nd11th
Professional work pending –4th1st–
Reasoning and knowledge pending –5th2nd8th
Writing pending –19th33rd–
Sticking to the facts pending –5th42nd–
Speed under pressure 19th of 32 7th–29th13th

Shaded figures are better than Muse Ember's. A dash means no result.

Research and examples

In the playground: our pick in 0 of 29 tests →

Where it has been measured

Highest-scoring overall of the 4 models priced under $0.25 per million tokens. Among models available today, in the top quarter (by percentile) for user surveys and marketing planning. Results for agents and tool use, professional work, reasoning and knowledge, writing, and sticking to the facts are pending: those sources last updated before this model was released.

Not timed: Artificial Analysis, our source for speed, has not tested it

Every result

95 published results from 5 sources, each in the source's own units, with the configuration that produced it.

BulletBench · measured by Spring Prompt · 15 results
MeasureValueRankConfigurationDated
BulletBench Bullet 60s: cost per gameUS dollars, lower is better $0.0108 24 of 49 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
BulletBench Bullet 60s: cost per gameUS dollars, lower is better $0.0106 23 of 49 Muse Ember (low reasoning)
low reasoning
9 Nov 2026
BulletBench Bullet 60s: cost per gameUS dollars, lower is better $0.0038 14 of 49 Muse Ember (minimal reasoning)
minimal reasoning
10 Nov 2026
BulletBench Bullet 60s: games lost on time% of games, lower is better 87.5% 41 of 49 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
BulletBench Bullet 60s: games lost on time% of games, lower is better 75.0% 34 of 49 Muse Ember (low reasoning)
low reasoning
9 Nov 2026
BulletBench Bullet 60s: games lost on time% of games, lower is better 62.5% 30 of 49 Muse Ember (minimal reasoning)
minimal reasoning
10 Nov 2026
BulletBench Bullet 60s: invalid moves% of moves, lower is better 0.0% 1 of 49 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
BulletBench Bullet 60s: invalid moves% of moves, lower is better 0.0% 1 of 49 Muse Ember (low reasoning)
low reasoning
9 Nov 2026
BulletBench Bullet 60s: invalid moves% of moves, lower is better 0.0% 1 of 49 Muse Ember (minimal reasoning)
minimal reasoning
10 Nov 2026
BulletBench Bullet 60s: ladder Eloladder Elo, higher is better 147
0–443
37 of 49 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
BulletBench Bullet 60s: ladder Eloladder Elo, higher is better 147
0–381
37 of 49 Muse Ember (low reasoning)
low reasoning
9 Nov 2026
BulletBench Bullet 60s: ladder Eloladder Elo, higher is better 310
0–595
32 of 49 Muse Ember (minimal reasoning)
minimal reasoning
10 Nov 2026
BulletBench Bullet 60s: median move timemilliseconds, lower is better 3.4 s 44 of 49 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
BulletBench Bullet 60s: median move timemilliseconds, lower is better 2.8 s 34 of 49 Muse Ember (low reasoning)
low reasoning
9 Nov 2026
BulletBench Bullet 60s: median move timemilliseconds, lower is better 1.8 s 28 of 49 Muse Ember (minimal reasoning)
minimal reasoning
10 Nov 2026

Not shown: Not your cost: prices are those charged on the run date.

CatalogBench · measured by Spring Prompt · 32 results
MeasureValueRankConfigurationDated
CatalogBench (sales brief): channel rules broken% of products, lower is better 0.0% 1 of 32 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
CatalogBench (sales brief): claims to check% of products, lower is better 0.0% 1 of 29 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
CatalogBench (sales brief): content quality% of checks, higher is better 98.5% 4 of 32 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
CatalogBench (sales brief): failed outputs% of products, lower is better 0.0% 1 of 32 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
CatalogBench (sales brief): missing UK information% of products, lower is better 0.0% 1 of 32 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
CatalogBench (sales brief): not findable% of products, lower is better 3.6% 14 of 32 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
CatalogBench (sales brief): publish-ready listings% of products, higher is better 54.2% 11 of 32 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
CatalogBench (sales brief): reliably publish-ready% of products, higher is better 35.7% 9 of 31 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
CatalogBench (sales brief): unsupported claims% of products, lower is better 33.3% 13 of 32 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
CatalogBench (sales brief): unsupported claimsclaims per product, lower is better 0.69 11 of 32 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
CatalogBench (sales brief): wrong attributes% of products, lower is better 14.9% 8 of 32 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
CatalogBench (sales brief): wrong category or variant% of products, lower is better 0.6% 3 of 32 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
CatalogBench: channel compliance% of products, higher is better 100.0% 1 of 32 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
CatalogBench: channel rules broken% of products, lower is better 0.0% 1 of 32 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
CatalogBench: claims to check% of products, lower is better 0.0% 1 of 29 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
CatalogBench: conflicts caught% of conflicts, higher is better 100.0% 1 of 32 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
CatalogBench: content quality% of checks, higher is better 95.6% 24 of 32 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
CatalogBench: cost per productUS dollars, lower is better $0.0020 7 of 32 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
CatalogBench: decision accuracy% of decisions, higher is better 95.8% 20 of 32 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
CatalogBench: failed outputs% of products, lower is better 2.4% 29 of 32 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
CatalogBench: field accuracy% of missing fields, higher is better 93.7% 14 of 32 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
CatalogBench: invented values% of filled values, lower is better 1.7% 18 of 32 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
CatalogBench: missing UK information% of products, lower is better 0.0% 1 of 32 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
CatalogBench: not findable% of products, lower is better 3.6% 9 of 32 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
CatalogBench: output tokens per producttokens, lower is better 3,816 8 of 9 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
CatalogBench: publish-ready listings% of products, higher is better 71.4% 8 of 32 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
CatalogBench: reliably publish-ready% of products, higher is better 53.6% 11 of 31 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
CatalogBench: time per productseconds, lower is better 8.10 5 of 32 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
CatalogBench: unsupported claims% of products, lower is better 7.1% 7 of 32 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
CatalogBench: unsupported claimsclaims per product, lower is better 0.29 8 of 32 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
CatalogBench: wrong attributes% of products, lower is better 13.7% 5 of 32 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
CatalogBench: wrong category or variant% of products, lower is better 1.8% 5 of 32 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026

Not shown: Not your catalogue: invented products with generated images, so a model's result on your own feed can differ.

DeckBench · measured by Spring Prompt · 18 results
MeasureValueRankConfigurationDated
DeckBench: accurate decks% of tasks, higher is better 66.7% 9 of 31 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
DeckBench: caveat dropped% of tasks, lower is better 33.3% 29 of 31 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
DeckBench: clean layout% of tasks, higher is better 0.0% 27 of 31 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
DeckBench: cost per deckUS dollars, lower is better $0.0112 6 of 31 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
DeckBench: deck ratingrating, higher is better 1,193
1,107–1,277
15 of 31 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
DeckBench: design quality% of the maximum, higher is better 56.7% 21 of 31 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
DeckBench: draft figure quoted% of tasks, lower is better 16.7% 12 of 31 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
DeckBench: findings missing% of tasks, lower is better 16.7% 20 of 31 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
DeckBench: head-to-head win rate% of comparisons, higher is better 51.9% 16 of 31 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
DeckBench: layout defects% of tasks, lower is better 100.0% 27 of 31 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
DeckBench: misleading metric used% of tasks, lower is better 16.7% 26 of 31 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
DeckBench: output tokens per decktokens, lower is better 22,094 4 of 10 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
DeckBench: presentable decks% of tasks, higher is better 0.0% 14 of 31 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
DeckBench: recommendation late or wrong% of tasks, lower is better 33.3% 17 of 31 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
DeckBench: slides needing work% of tasks, lower is better 50.0% 15 of 31 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
DeckBench: time per deckseconds, lower is better 30.2 4 of 31 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
DeckBench: unsupported claims% of tasks, lower is better 16.7% 15 of 31 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
DeckBench: unsupported numbers% of tasks, lower is better 16.7% 24 of 31 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026

Not shown: Not your analysis or your brand: invented companies, six public tasks, one deck per model per task at the provider's default reasoning setting.

ROASBench · measured by Spring Prompt · 9 results
MeasureValueRankConfigurationDated
ROASBench: audience scorescore out of 100, higher is better 60.6 18 of 32 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
ROASBench: business scorescore out of 100, higher is better 53.1 7 of 32 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
ROASBench: consistency scorescore out of 100, higher is better 38.6 4 of 32 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
ROASBench: contribution profitsimulated US dollars, higher is better $621,558 13 of 32 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
ROASBench: cost of a runUS dollars, lower is better $0.0297 4 of 32 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
ROASBench: months over budgetmonths of 12, lower is better 0 1 of 32 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
ROASBench: overall scorescore out of 100, higher is better 51.8 8 of 32 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
ROASBench: planning scorescore out of 100, higher is better 55.0 8 of 32 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
ROASBench: return on ad spendprofit per $1 spent, higher is better $0.70 5 of 32 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026

Not shown: Not real ad performance: the market is a deterministic simulation of one invented skincare brand.

SurveyBench · measured by Spring Prompt · 21 results
MeasureValueRankConfigurationDated
SurveyBench: analysis ratingrating, higher is better 1,392
1,323–1,501
5 of 22 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
SurveyBench: analysis scorepoints of 100, higher is better 84.3 10 of 22 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
SurveyBench: cost per taskUS dollars, lower is better $0.0213 6 of 21 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
SurveyBench: head-to-head win rate% of comparisons, higher is better 62.2% 6 of 22 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
SurveyBench: leading or double-barrelled questions% of tasks, lower is better 33.3% 9 of 22 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
SurveyBench: mistaken next steps% of tasks, lower is better 22.2% 9 of 22 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
SurveyBench: numbers right% of answers, higher is better 100.0% 1 of 22 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
SurveyBench: objectives unanswerable% of tasks, lower is better 0.0% 1 of 22 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
SurveyBench: output tokens per tasktokens, lower is better 40,298 7 of 11 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
SurveyBench: precision ignored% of tasks, lower is better 11.1% 11 of 22 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
SurveyBench: research scorepoints of 100, higher is better 86.9 10 of 22 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
SurveyBench: sound research% of tasks, higher is better 22.2% 8 of 22 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
SurveyBench: stakeholder's view presumed% of tasks, lower is better 0.0% 1 of 22 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
SurveyBench: survey plan scorepoints of 100, higher is better 92.8 8 of 22 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
SurveyBench: survey structure% of tasks, lower is better 22.2% 9 of 22 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
SurveyBench: time per taskseconds, lower is better 73.2 3 of 21 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
SurveyBench: traps handled% of traps, higher is better 98.4% 3 of 22 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
SurveyBench: traps missed% of tasks, lower is better 22.2% 3 of 22 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
SurveyBench: unsupported findings% of tasks, lower is better 22.2% 5 of 22 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
SurveyBench: wrong numbers% of tasks, lower is better 11.1% 11 of 22 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026
SurveyBench: wrong recommendation% of tasks, lower is better 22.2% 12 of 22 Muse Ember
provider default reasoning
9 Nov 2026

Not shown: Not your customers or your data: invented organisations with simulated respondents, nine public tasks, one run per model per task at the provider's default reasoning setting.

Embed a score badge

A badge for its Spring Prompt Score and each of our benchmarks that ranked Muse Ember, from the current results. Paste the code into a page or README; it links back to where the result comes from.

Muse Ember is #9 of 29 on the Spring Prompt Score (63 of 100, from 5 of 5 of our benchmarks), measured by Spring Prompt Spring Prompt Score · 5 of 5 benchmarks
<a href="https://springprompt.com/score#meta-muse-ember"><img src="https://springprompt.com/badge/score/meta-muse-ember.svg" alt="Muse Ember is #9 of 29 on the Spring Prompt Score (63 of 100, from 5 of 5 of our benchmarks), measured by Spring Prompt" height="20"></a>
Muse Ember is #11 of 29 on CatalogBench (Reliably publish-ready, factual brief: 53.6%), measured by Spring Prompt CatalogBench · Reliably publish-ready, factual brief
<a href="https://springprompt.com/benchmarks/catalogbench?focus=meta-muse-ember"><img src="https://springprompt.com/badge/catalogbench/meta-muse-ember.svg" alt="Muse Ember is #11 of 29 on CatalogBench (Reliably publish-ready, factual brief: 53.6%), measured by Spring Prompt" height="20"></a>
Muse Ember is #15 of 30 on DeckBench (Deck rating: 1,193), measured by Spring Prompt DeckBench · Deck rating
<a href="https://springprompt.com/benchmarks/deckbench?focus=meta-muse-ember"><img src="https://springprompt.com/badge/deckbench/meta-muse-ember.svg" alt="Muse Ember is #15 of 30 on DeckBench (Deck rating: 1,193), measured by Spring Prompt" height="20"></a>
Muse Ember is #5 of 21 on SurveyBench (Analysis rating: 1,392), measured by Spring Prompt SurveyBench · Analysis rating
<a href="https://springprompt.com/benchmarks/surveybench?focus=meta-muse-ember"><img src="https://springprompt.com/badge/surveybench/meta-muse-ember.svg" alt="Muse Ember is #5 of 21 on SurveyBench (Analysis rating: 1,392), measured by Spring Prompt" height="20"></a>
Muse Ember is #8 of 30 on ROASBench (Score: 51.8), measured by Spring Prompt ROASBench · Score
<a href="https://springprompt.com/benchmarks/roasbench?focus=meta-muse-ember"><img src="https://springprompt.com/badge/roasbench/meta-muse-ember.svg" alt="Muse Ember is #8 of 30 on ROASBench (Score: 51.8), measured by Spring Prompt" height="20"></a>
Muse Ember is #27 of 38 on BulletBench (Ladder Elo: 310), measured by Spring Prompt BulletBench · Ladder Elo
<a href="https://springprompt.com/benchmarks/bulletbench?focus=meta-muse-ember"><img src="https://springprompt.com/badge/bulletbench/meta-muse-ember.svg" alt="Muse Ember is #27 of 38 on BulletBench (Ladder Elo: 310), measured by Spring Prompt" height="20"></a>

Test Muse Ember on your own prompt.

Benchmarks aren't your task. Run it next to cheaper and newer models on your prompt, with every answer checked and costed.