GPT-6 Luna (Xhigh) vs Muse Wonder (Max)
Which is better for the money: GPT-6 Luna (Xhigh) by OpenAI or Muse Wonder (Max) by Meta? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-26.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Muse Wonder (Max) scores 17.8 points higher (52.4 vs 34.6) but costs 87× as much to run the benchmark ($5787 vs $66.8; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Muse Wonder (Max) when you need intelligence above 34.6, and GPT-6 Luna (Xhigh) when 34.6 is enough.
| Metric | GPT-6 Luna (Xhigh) | Muse Wonder (Max) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 34.6 | 52.4 | +51.4% Muse Wonder (Max) is 51.4% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $66.81 | $5,786.78 | +8561.5% Muse Wonder (Max) is 87× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 27.06s | 45.32s | +67.5% Muse Wonder (Max) is 67.5% 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 (Xhigh): 51.4% more intelligence, 8561.5% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 67.5% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- GPT-6 Luna (Xhigh) 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 (Xhigh)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-xhigh/muse-wonder · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/gpt-6-luna-xhigh/muse-wonder?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill