ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Nov 2, 2026

Muse Wonder vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 comes out ahead, 79 to 68 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.

  1. Meta

    Muse Wonder

    Released Oct 12, 2026New

    68/100
    • ECI161.7
    • Price$4.00 / $20.00
    • Context1.05M
    Full specs Remove Muse Wonder
  2. Our pick

    DeepSeek

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017

    Released Oct 17, 2026New

    79/100
    • ECI158.8
    • Price$0.15 / $0.60
    • Context1M
    Full specs Remove DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017

  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

01 — Verdict

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 is our pick

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 is the better all-round choice, scoring 79/100 against Muse Wonder (68). It leads on price. Muse Wonder wins on capability and inputs & features. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

  • CapabilityMuse WonderCapabilities Index (ECI): Muse Wonder 161.7 · DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 158.8
  • Lowest priceDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 $0.263 · Muse Wonder $8.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextMuse WonderMuse Wonder 1,048,576 · DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 1,000,000 tokens
  • Widest inputsMuse WonderMuse Wonder: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video · DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017: Text, Images
  • Self-hostingDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017Publishes downloadable weights (MIT)
How the score is built
MeasureWeightMuse WonderDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%9187
Price25%774
Inputs & features15%10070
Context window10%6160
Overall100%68/10079/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

Muse Wonder vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 specifications side by side
SpecificationMuse WonderMetaDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017DeepSeek
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)161.7 (best)158.8
ECI rank#13 of 165 (best)#19 of 165
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions—93.2%
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics82.1% (best)71.2%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics99.4%99.4%
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions—42.5%
Price per million tokens
Input$4.00$0.15 (best)
Output$20.00$0.60 (best)
Cached input$0.20$0.003 (best)
Blended (3:1)$8.00$0.263 (best)
Long-context rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceOfficial Meta APIOfficial DeepSeek API
Limits
Context window1,048,576 tokens (best)1,000,000 tokens
Max output131,072 tokens384,000 tokens (best)
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesYesYes
PDFsYesNo
AudioYesNo
VideoYesNo
ReasoningYesminimal · low · medium · high · xhigh · maxYeslow · high · max
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputYesYes
Availability
WeightsProprietaryOpenMIT
API model IDmuse-wonder-1.0deepseek-flash
API providers940 (best)
ReleasedOct 12, 2026Oct 17, 2026
Knowledge cutoff—May 2025
03 — Cost

What would a month cost?

Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.

  • Muse Wonder$80.00
  • DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017$2.70
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Muse Wonder or DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 is the better all-round choice, scoring 79/100 against Muse Wonder (68). It leads on price. Muse Wonder wins on capability and inputs & features. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

Which is cheaper, Muse Wonder or DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 is cheaper at $0.15 input / $0.60 output per million tokens (official DeepSeek API price). Muse Wonder costs $4.00 input / $20.00 output per million tokens (official Meta API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.263 per million tokens for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 versus $8.00 for Muse Wonder (30× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

Muse Wonder scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Muse Wonder 161.7 (#13 of 165) and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 158.8 (#19 of 165). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (159.2–164.6 vs 156.7–162.2), so treat the gap as small. On individual benchmarks: FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 — Muse Wonder 82.1%, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 71.2%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — Muse Wonder 99.4%, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 99.4%.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Muse Wonder and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Muse Wonder leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.

Which has the bigger context window?

Muse Wonder has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 1,000,000 for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017. Maximum output per response: Muse Wonder up to 131,072, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 up to 384,000 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Muse Wonder accepts text, images, PDFs, audio and video; DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 accepts text and images. Muse Wonder handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 publishes its weights (MIT) and can be self-hosted; Muse Wonder is proprietary.

Which is newer?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 is the newest, released Oct 17, 2026. Muse Wonder came out Oct 12, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 May 2025.

How do you decide the winner?

Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Nov 2, 2026.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons