Muse Wonder vs Qwen3.7-Max-Preview

  • Muse Wonder rates higher on LMArena’s text leaderboard: 1501 against 1475.
  • Qwen3.7-Max-Preview is cheaper: $1.48 / $4.42 per million input / output tokens, against $4 / $20 for Muse Wonder.
  • On the 3 Vals AI benchmarks both have taken, Muse Wonder wins 3 and Qwen3.7-Max-Preview wins 0.
LMArena text rating over time
14601468147514831490May 26Jun 26Aug 26Sep 26Oct 26
LatestQwen3.7-Max-Preview 1475

Side by side

Models (2/6)
  • Muse Wonder
  • Qwen3.7-Max-Preview
BenchmarkMuse WonderQwen3.7-Max-Preview
The model
LabMetaAlibaba
Released2026-10-122026-05-21
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window1M1M
Input, per 1M tokens$4$1.48
Output, per 1M tokens$20$4.42
LMArena, people’s votes
LMArena TextMillions of people compare two anonymous models side by side and vote for the better answer1501#7 of 3511475#24 of 351
LMArena WebDevPeople ask two anonymous models to build the same web app, try both and vote for the better one1651#18 of 1241515#58 of 124
LMArena CodingLMArena’s text votes on prompts that ask for code1518#11 of 3461497#29 of 346
LMArena MathLMArena’s text votes on math prompts1484#30 of 3391488#23 of 339
LMArena Creative writingLMArena’s text votes on stories, poems and other creative writing1493#7 of 3491448#35 of 349
LMArena Hard promptsLMArena’s text votes on the hardest prompts1505#12 of 3511482#35 of 351
LMArena Instruction followingLMArena’s text votes on prompts with specific instructions to follow1493#10 of 3511460#40 of 351
Vals AI, overall
Vals IndexVals AI’s headline score64.88%#6 of 27—
Vals AI, coding
Terminal-Bench 4.0Frontier-difficulty tasks an agent completes in a real terminal49.49%#10 of 55—
SWE-benchReal GitHub issues from open-source projects—68.80%#66 of 85
Vibe Code BenchBuilding complete web apps from a plain-language brief, graded on whether the app works83.09%#20 of 11547.67%#63 of 115
Code MigrationRewriting working programs in a new language, graded on whether the new program still passes its tests72.36%#5 of 28—
LiveCodeBenchFresh competitive programming problems, collected after models’ training cut-offs to avoid contamination—87.06%#19 of 143
Vals AI, finance
Finance AgentThe core tasks of a financial analyst, done as an agent with research tools65.55%#6 of 31—
Finance IndexVals AI’s composite of finance tasks61.23%#6 of 31—
Tax Agent BenchAgentic research into US corporate tax questions36.27%#12 of 7615.83%#54 of 76
Vals AI, law
Legal IndexVals AI’s composite of legal tasks75.26%#3 of 28—
Legal Research BenchAgentic US legal research50.48%#6 of 8525.48%#59 of 85
Vals AI, medicine
MedCodeAssigning the right medical billing codes from clinical notes—38.75%#70 of 107
Vals AI, reasoning
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level questions in biology, physics and chemistry that experts answer well and search does not—90.15%#25 of 138
MMLU-ProHarder, reasoning-focused multiple choice across 14 subjects, from law to engineering—89.31%#12 of 138
Terminal-Bench ScienceExpert-written scientific research workflows, run by an agent in a terminal22.86%#10 of 42—

Add models in the compare tool.

Questions

Which is better, Muse Wonder or Qwen3.7-Max-Preview?

Muse Wonder rates higher on LMArena’s text leaderboard: 1501 against 1475. Qwen3.7-Max-Preview is cheaper: $1.48 / $4.42 per million input / output tokens, against $4 / $20 for Muse Wonder. On the 3 Vals AI benchmarks both have taken, Muse Wonder wins 3 and Qwen3.7-Max-Preview wins 0.

Which is cheaper, Muse Wonder or Qwen3.7-Max-Preview?

Qwen3.7-Max-Preview is cheaper: $1.48 / $4.42 per million input / output tokens, against $4 / $20 for Muse Wonder.

Sources

Every number on this page comes from these sources; models without a published number show none. Download the data. Cite as “Nexus Explorer, nexus.inc/models”.