Mistral Small 3.2 vs Muse Wonder (Max)
Which is better for the money: Mistral Small 3.2 by Mistral 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 45.4 points higher (52.4 vs 7.0) but costs 48× as much to run the benchmark ($5787 vs $122; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Muse Wonder (Max) when you need intelligence above 7.0, and Mistral Small 3.2 when 7.0 is enough.
| Metric | Mistral Small 3.2 | Muse Wonder (Max) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 7.0 | 52.4 | +648.6% Muse Wonder (Max) is 7.5× more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $121.78 | $5,786.78 | +4651.8% Muse Wonder (Max) is 48× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 12.50s | 41.43s | +231.4% Muse Wonder (Max) is 231.4% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.07 / $0.20 | $4.00 / $20.0 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image, Speech, Video |
Muse Wonder (Max) vs Mistral Small 3.2: 648.6% more intelligence, 4651.8% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 231.4% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Mistral Small 3.2 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores 37.90 for $110.
- 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.
Mistral Small 3.2Muse 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/mistral-small-3-2/muse-wonder · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/mistral-small-3-2/muse-wonder?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill