STEALTHMARK · HEAD TO HEAD

All comparisons ↗

Muse Wonder vs Qwen3.8-27B

Muse Wonder leads Qwen3.8-27B by 5.3 points on StealthMark, 57.0 to 51.7. It leads on 5 of 9 benchmarks, including Latch, and Qwen3.8-27B on 4, including Foresight. Muse Wonder scores higher on Ground Truth.

See the difference ↘
All results ↗
All results ↗

Overall StealthMark

57.0/100Overall rank 10/53
51.7/100Overall rank 14/53

General Intelligence

53.1/100
46.2/100

Visual Intelligence

64.0/100
61.4/100

Reasoning efficiency

On every task, result quality and reasoning tokens are each compared with all measured models and weighed equally. Each dot is one model.

Single-step reasoning Result quality weighed against reasoning tokens on a single problem

Multi-step reasoning Result quality weighed against reasoning tokens across connected steps, as in agentic workflows

Open or local

Local modelOpen model · Apache-2.0

BENCHMARK BY BENCHMARK

Where each model leads

  • Muse Wonder
  • Qwen3.8-27B
  • Other models
  • Median

DATASHEET

Specs and pricing

Muse Wonder scores higher on StealthMark and runs 7.3× faster in our speed test. Qwen3.8-27B is 12× cheaper per output token. Both take about 1M tokens of context.

  • Muse Wonder
  • Qwen3.8-27B
  • Other models
  • Median
PricePer 1M output tokens, input below
Muse Wonder: $20$4 inputQwen3.8-27B: $1.7012× cheaper$0.42 input
Context windowTokens per request, max output below
Muse Wonder: 1MTiedQwen3.8-27B: 1MTied128K max output
Output speedTokens per second, our measurement
Muse Wonder: 5707.3× fastertokens/sQwen3.8-27B: 78tokens/s
SizeTotal and active parameters
Muse Wonder: Not disclosedQwen3.8-27B: 27BAll activeEstimated
Developer
MetaQwen
Released
12 Oct 202614 Aug 2026
Origin
United StatesChina
Input → output
Text, image, video, audio, PDF → textText, image, video → text
Architecture
Not publishedDense causal language model with vision encoder; hybrid Gated DeltaNet and gated attention; MTP-trained

Full datasheets, every price and sourceMuse Wonder ↗Qwen3.8-27B ↗

Anticipating threats and planning ahead. Collect coins while avoiding ghosts. Ghosts move before the player each turn, and collisions cost a life. 3 levels in sequence, up to 66 turns in total. Earlier moves and outcomes carry forward, testing learning across levels.

Muse Wonder 52.3/100Rank 17/47

Survived 0 of 3
Foresight: complete playing field
Level 311 ptsTurn 17 / 20

Qwen3.8-27B 63.0/100Rank 7/47

Survived 1 of 3
Foresight: complete playing field
Level 311 ptsTurn 16 / 20

Points per level

LevelMuse WonderQwen3.8-27B
Level 1Second Thoughts
16 ptsOut of lives
26 ptsSurvived
Level 2Pressure Pot
10 ptsOut of lives
12 ptsOut of lives
Level 3Hide or Flight
11 ptsOut of lives
11 ptsOut of lives

Cooperative planning and learning from experience. Coordinate two robots to push numbered cores onto matching sockets. Pressure plates hold doors open; moving either robot uses one turn. 5 levels in sequence, up to 152 turns in total. Earlier moves and outcomes carry forward, testing learning across levels.

Muse Wonder 67.0/100Rank 17/48

Cleared 5 of 5
Latch: complete playing field
Level 520.6 ptsTurn 27 / 40

Qwen3.8-27B 38.6/100Rank 28/48

Cleared 2 of 5
Latch: complete playing field
Level 515.8 ptsTurn 31 / 40

Points per level

LevelMuse WonderQwen3.8-27B
Level 1Hold the door
5.2 ptsCleared
5.2 ptsCleared
Level 2Crossfeed
9 ptsCleared
9.8 ptsCleared
Level 3Relay vault
18.8 ptsCleared
11.2 ptsFinished early
Level 4Passing bay
17.8 ptsClearedFinished early · 1 beacon left
13.2 ptsFinished early
Level 5Second thoughts
20.6 ptsCleared
15.8 ptsFinished early

Newton's Mirror

Same task instructions

Physics, perspective and recursive reflections, tested together. Explore the test ↗

The judgment

Muse Wonder

The flattened cyan cap, separate airborne black blob and crimson droplets support much of the contact sequence, although crimson adhesion and forward carriage remain unresolved. Main-sphere placement is broadly compatible with the prescribed view. Sparse isolated mirror images replace the defining repeated room structure and curved nested reflections. The crimson mass is visibly oversized, and the top-center lamp image is missing.

Qwen3.8-27B

The room fills the complete 16:9 frame without visible borders or labels. Central placement fits the wider frame, and the paint colors follow the expected vertical order. Bilateral side images, diminishing echoes and an overlapping floor image provide limited mirror depth. Broad sphere surfaces lack ordered nested room imagery, while planar panel sequences and outer chains remain missing or unresolved. Soft highlights do not establish emitter mapping, while paint attachment and transport history are only partly supported.

Score breakdown

CategoryMuse WonderQwen3.8-27B
State at 600 ms22.0/2523.0/25
Camera and placement12.0/1513.0/15
Reflections21.5/12024.0/120
Materials and scale7.5/106.5/10
Floor-damage reward0.0/100.0/10

Benchmark task

A spinning metal sphere and paint in a mirrored room test physical reasoning, perspective and consistency across repeated reflections.

Selfie

Different task instructions

Visual construction and creative interpretation.

The judgment

Muse Wonder

An appealing, coherent cartoon with a readable effortful expression and clear forefeet gripping the trunk. Soft colours and controlled contours support its tenderness. Smooth ears, stiff foreleg construction, limited surface texture and uncertain seed contact keep the execution below intricate illustration quality.

Qwen3.8-27B

A cohesive emerald-and-gold illustration with a gentle expression, flowing robes, luminous halo and three clearly ringed orbs. Limbs remain connected, and the asymmetric legs communicate floating. The rounded face reads somewhat bear-like; the raised palm faces outward rather than upward, and chest-hand fingers are crowded. Clean ornamentation exceeds the comparatively simple anatomical modeling and shading.

Score breakdown

CategoryMuse WonderQwen3.8-27B
Task & likeness7.5/108.0/10
Anatomy & construction7.0/107.5/10
Space & placement7.5/108.0/10
Light & reflections7.0/107.5/10
Purposeful detail7.5/108.0/10
Artistry & character6.5/107.5/10
Materials & effects6.5/107.5/10
Visual integrity8.0/108.5/10

Benchmark task

Muse Wonder

A small elephant protecting a delicate seed tests expressive anatomy, physical contact and contrasting organic materials.

Qwen3.8-27B

A floating capybara in ornate robes tests character anatomy, layered fabric and the placement of surrounding luminous forms.

Mona Lisa

Different task instructions

Precise visual recall and portrait reconstruction.

The judgment

Muse Wonder

A competent illustrative interpretation with controlled curves, readable details and coherent depth layers. Facial, hair and garment shading demonstrate more development than basic construction. Replication remains limited by the frontal pose, elongated face and pronounced smile; crowded fingers, weak contact shadows and smooth materials constrain anatomical and painterly conviction.

Qwen3.8-27B

The centered portrait, dark clothing and overlapping hands evoke the Mona Lisa, but replication is weak. The face is excessively elongated, the eyes stare broadly, and the hands reduce to rounded masses with shallow finger marks. Soft shading creates some volume, while the landscape remains indistinct. The precise gold frame is more resolved than the portrait.

Score breakdown

CategoryMuse WonderQwen3.8-27B
Task & likeness5.5/104.0/10
Anatomy & construction5.5/104.5/10
Space & placement5.5/104.5/10
Light & reflections5.5/105.0/10
Purposeful detail5.5/105.0/10
Artistry & character5.5/105.0/10
Materials & effects5.0/105.0/10
Visual integrity6.5/105.0/10

Benchmark task

An SVG interpretation of the Mona Lisa tests facial likeness, anatomy and the composition of a familiar portrait.

Beach

Different task instructions

Creativity, perspective and visual beauty.

The judgment

Muse Wonder

A lively beach illustration with expressive animals, controlled colour transitions and unusually readable accessories. Connected graphic forms make the activities recognizable. Crowded overlaps, compressed depth, schematic joints, weak directional shadows and limited material variation constrain its physical coherence and refinement.

Qwen3.8-27B

The sweeping palm, glowing sunset and purple-to-orange palette create an appealing beach composition. Birds, animals and reflections fulfill the brief, with clean silhouettes and readable small accents. Schematic anatomy, repetitive shoreline geometry and limited perspective integration constrain depth. Foreground lighting and uniform reflection bars provide atmosphere but little physical coherence.

Score breakdown

CategoryMuse WonderQwen3.8-27B
Task & likeness8.5/108.5/10
Anatomy & construction6.0/106.5/10
Space & placement6.5/106.0/10
Light & reflections6.5/106.0/10
Purposeful detail9.0/107.0/10
Artistry & character7.0/107.0/10
Materials & effects6.0/106.5/10
Visual integrity7.0/107.0/10

Benchmark task

A busy shoreline at sunset tests scene composition, animal forms and the relationship between light and water reflections.

Ground Truth

Same task instructions

Physical reasoning, light and visual reconstruction.

The judgment

Muse Wonder

This benchmark has not been assessed yet.

Qwen3.8-27B

This benchmark has not been assessed yet.

Benchmark task

A plank, computer mouse and blueberry in a steel room test physical stability, spatial relationships, materials and lighting.

Raccoon

Different task instructions

Scene composition and interacting subjects.

The judgment

Muse Wonder

An expressive, coherent cartoon demonstrates the requested riding and steering interaction. Clean contours, differentiated accessories and energetic spray support its appeal. Concealed seated contacts, compressed vehicle perspective and weak directional lighting limit physical resolution despite the detailed presentation.

Qwen3.8-27B

The raccoon clearly rides on the dog's back, and the dog reaches the jet ski's steering grip. Cheerful expressions, a bright palette and sweeping wake make the action readable. Anatomy and machinery remain simplified, with overlapping paws and limited seat definition. Flat lighting, sparse surface detail and broad white splash shapes limit depth and finish. A clipped gray fragment interrupts the upper-left corner.

Score breakdown

CategoryMuse WonderQwen3.8-27B
Task & likeness7.5/108.5/10
Anatomy & construction5.5/106.5/10
Space & placement6.5/107.0/10
Light & reflections4.5/105.5/10
Purposeful detail7.5/106.5/10
Artistry & character5.5/106.5/10
Materials & effects7.0/106.5/10
Visual integrity7.0/107.5/10

Benchmark task

A jet-ski scene pairs a canine driver with a raccoon passenger. It tests the placement and contact of interacting subjects, along with vehicle construction.

Pelican

Different task instructions

Subject construction and spatial relationships.

The judgment

Muse Wonder

A controlled, expressive seaside illustration with a distinctive pelican, coherent bicycle geometry and successfully resolved graphic detail. Visible pedal support and plausible occlusion strengthen the riding construction. Aligned wheels and layered scenery establish placement. Limited cast shadows, simplified leg articulation and restrained material modeling constrain its physical finish.

Qwen3.8-27B

The pelican’s oversized bill, straw hat and flowing scarf create a distinctive focal character against a well-composed coastal sunset. Wheels and frame are readable, but the wings do not reach the steering, overlapping legs obscure separate pedal contacts, and the crank linkage is unclear. Clean vector shapes and restrained shading support an appealing illustration with limited physical depth.

Score breakdown

CategoryMuse WonderQwen3.8-27B
Task & likeness8.5/108.0/10
Anatomy & construction6.0/105.5/10
Space & placement7.5/107.0/10
Light & reflections5.5/107.0/10
Purposeful detail8.5/107.5/10
Artistry & character7.5/107.5/10
Materials & effects6.0/106.5/10
Visual integrity8.0/108.0/10

Benchmark task

A cycling pelican tests anatomy, riding posture and contact between the bird and the bicycle.