Muse Wonder (Max) vs Qwen3.8 27B (Low)
Which is better for the money: Muse Wonder (Max) by Meta or Qwen3.8 27B (Low) by Alibaba? 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 26.2 points higher (52.4 vs 26.2) but costs 5.5× as much to run the benchmark ($5787 vs $1060; flagship vs premium cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Muse Wonder (Max) when you need intelligence above 26.2, and Qwen3.8 27B (Low) when 26.2 is enough.
| Metric | Muse Wonder (Max) | Qwen3.8 27B (Low) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 52.4 | 26.2 | −50.0% Qwen3.8 27B (Low) is 50.0% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $5,786.78 | $1,060.08 | −81.7% Qwen3.8 27B (Low) is 81.7% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 45.32s | 55.56s | +22.6% Qwen3.8 27B (Low) is 22.6% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $4.00 / $20.0 | $0.50 / $3.00 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image, Speech, Video | Text, Image, Video |
Qwen3.8 27B (Low) vs Muse Wonder (Max): 50.0% less intelligence, 81.7% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 22.6% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- 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.
- Qwen3.8 27B (Low) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Xhigh) scores 51.00 for $662.
Muse Wonder (Max)Qwen3.8 27B (Low)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/muse-wonder/qwen3-8-27b-low · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/muse-wonder/qwen3-8-27b-low?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill