Muse Wonder (Max) vs Qwen3.8 27B (Medium)
Which is better for the money: Muse Wonder (Max) by Meta or Qwen3.8 27B (Medium) by Alibaba? 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 24.8 points higher (52.4 vs 27.6) but costs 5.0× as much to run the benchmark ($5787 vs $1165; flagship vs premium cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Muse Wonder (Max) when you need intelligence above 27.6, and Qwen3.8 27B (Medium) when 27.6 is enough.
| Metric | Muse Wonder (Max) | Qwen3.8 27B (Medium) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 52.4 | 27.6 | −47.3% Qwen3.8 27B (Medium) is 47.3% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $5,786.78 | $1,165.00 | −79.9% Qwen3.8 27B (Medium) is 79.9% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 46.63s | 56.53s | +21.2% Qwen3.8 27B (Medium) is 21.2% 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 (Medium) vs Muse Wonder (Max): 47.3% less intelligence, 79.9% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 21.2% 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 (Medium) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Max) scores 51.80 for $1082.
Muse Wonder (Max)Qwen3.8 27B (Medium)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-medium · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/muse-wonder/qwen3-8-27b-medium?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill