Muse Wonder (Max) vs Beam 1.0
Which is better for the money: Muse Wonder (Max) by Meta or Beam 1.0 by Reflection? 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 22.1 points higher (52.4 vs 30.3) but costs 18× as much to run the benchmark ($5787 vs $319; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Muse Wonder (Max) when you need intelligence above 30.3, and Beam 1.0 when 30.3 is enough.
| Metric | Muse Wonder (Max) | Beam 1.0 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 52.4 | 30.3 | −42.2% Beam 1.0 is 42.2% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $5,786.78 | $318.73 | −94.5% Beam 1.0 is 94.5% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 41.43s | 8.02s | −80.6% Beam 1.0 is 80.6% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $4.00 / $20.0 | $0.40 / $1.20 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image, Speech, Video | Text |
Beam 1.0 vs Muse Wonder (Max): 42.2% less intelligence, 94.5% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 80.6% faster 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.
- Beam 1.0 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores 46.30 for $207.
Muse Wonder (Max)Beam 1.0Today'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/reflection-beam · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/muse-wonder/reflection-beam?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill