GLM-5.1 (Reasoning) vs Muse Wonder (Max)
Which is better for the money: GLM-5.1 (Reasoning) by Z AI or Muse Wonder (Max) by Meta? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-25.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Muse Wonder (Max) scores 26.3 points higher (52.4 vs 26.1) but costs 3.9× as much to run the benchmark ($5787 vs $1487; flagship vs premium cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Muse Wonder (Max) when you need intelligence above 26.1, and GLM-5.1 (Reasoning) when 26.1 is enough.
| Metric | GLM-5.1 (Reasoning) | Muse Wonder (Max) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 26.1 | 52.4 | +100.8% Muse Wonder (Max) is 2.0× more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $1,486.78 | $5,786.78 | +289.2% Muse Wonder (Max) is 3.9× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 60.76s | 40.70s | −33.0% Muse Wonder (Max) is 33.0% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $1.28 / $4.07 | $4.00 / $20.0 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text, Image, Speech, Video |
Muse Wonder (Max) vs GLM-5.1 (Reasoning): 100.8% more intelligence, 289.2% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 33.0% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- GLM-5.1 (Reasoning) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Max) scores 51.80 for $1082.
- Muse Wonder (Max) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Opus 5.5 (Xhigh, Default Fallback) scores 56.00 for $4057.
GLM-5.1 (Reasoning)Muse Wonder (Max)Today's Pareto frontierOpen-weights frontierEvery other model
Matchup
Compare something else
Agents:
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/glm-5-1/muse-wonder · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/glm-5-1/muse-wonder?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill