GPT-6 Luna (Low) vs Muse Wonder (Max)
Which is better for the money: GPT-6 Luna (Low) by OpenAI or Muse Wonder (Max) by Meta? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-24.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Muse Wonder (Max) scores 30.9 points higher (52.4 vs 21.5) but costs 544× as much to run the benchmark ($5787 vs $10.6; flagship vs budget cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Muse Wonder (Max) when you need intelligence above 21.5, and GPT-6 Luna (Low) when 21.5 is enough.
| Metric | GPT-6 Luna (Low) | Muse Wonder (Max) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 21.5 | 52.4 | +143.7% Muse Wonder (Max) is 2.4× more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $10.63 | $5,786.78 | +54338.2% Muse Wonder (Max) is 544× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 6.60s | 41.43s | +527.7% Muse Wonder (Max) is 527.7% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.10 / $0.50 | $4.00 / $20.0 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image, Speech, Video |
Muse Wonder (Max) vs GPT-6 Luna (Low): 143.7% more intelligence, 54338.2% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 527.7% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- GPT-6 Luna (Low) is on today's frontier: nothing is both smarter and cheaper.
- 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.
GPT-6 Luna (Low)Muse Wonder (Max)Today's Pareto frontierEvery other model
Matchup
Compare something else
Agents:
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/gpt-6-luna-low/muse-wonder · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/gpt-6-luna-low/muse-wonder?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill