Model comparison
Selected 2 / 5See the differences. Choose what matters to you.
Available modelsSelected 2 / 5
Differences vs. muse-wonder · high
Score, cost & time differences
Current baseline · muse-wonder · high
76Backend engineering
Compared with muse-wonder · high
- muse-wonder · xhigh
Backend engineering: +1 ptsReference cost $2.15 ($0.96 more)Evaluation time 10m 28s (5m 0s more)
Differences reflect these evaluation tasks. Cost and time cover the same dimension, not a typical conversation. Scoring & cost notes
| Metric | muse-wonder · high | muse-wonder · xhigh |
|---|---|---|
| Backend engineering | muse-wonderhigh 76 | muse-wonderxhigh 77+1 pts |
| Overall | muse-wonderhigh 74.90 | muse-wonderxhigh 77.05+2.15 pts |
| Frontend interaction | muse-wonderhigh 78 | muse-wonderxhigh 85+7 pts |
| Knowledge & Reasoning | muse-wonderhigh 80 | muse-wonderxhigh 80Tied |
| Visual aesthetics | muse-wonderhigh 68 | muse-wonderxhigh 73+5 pts |
| Maintainability | muse-wonderhigh 59 | muse-wonderxhigh 57−2 pts |
Backend engineering evaluation · Evaluation consumption, not a monthly subscription fee
Cost & time
Backend engineering evaluation| Metric | muse-wonder · high | muse-wonder · xhigh |
|---|---|---|
| Reference cost | muse-wonderhigh $1.19 | muse-wonderxhigh $2.15+$0.96 |
| Evaluation time | muse-wonderhigh 5m 28s | muse-wonderxhigh 10m 28s+91.3% |
Capability profiles
Show up to five models. Select names to focus the chart.
Behind each score
Expand to inspect each subaxis.
Backend engineeringSubscores
| Scoring dimension | muse-wonderhigh | muse-wonderxhigh |
|---|---|---|
| Contracts and boundaries | 15 / 20 | 15 / 20 |
| Retries and failures | 17 / 20 | 18 / 20 |
| CI and adversarial review | 12 / 20 | 13 / 20 |
| Transactions and consistency | 17 / 20 | 17 / 20 |
| Caching and regression | 15 / 20 | 14 / 20 |
Frontend interactionSubscores
| Scoring dimension | muse-wonderhigh | muse-wonderxhigh |
|---|---|---|
| Layout and adaptation | 18 / 20 | 18 / 20 |
| Interaction behavior | 20 / 20 | 20 / 20 |
| State continuity | 10 / 20 | 15 / 20 |
| Accessibility and feedback | 13 / 15 | 13 / 15 |
| State validation and regression | 17 / 25 | 19 / 25 |
Knowledge & ReasoningSubscores
| Scoring dimension | muse-wonderhigh | muse-wonderxhigh |
|---|---|---|
| Mathematical reasoning | 15 / 15 | 15 / 15 |
| Computer science & AI | 5 / 15 | 5 / 15 |
| Science and engineering | 10 / 10 | 10 / 10 |
| Life sciences and medicine | 15 / 20 | 15 / 20 |
| Humanities and general knowledge | 35 / 40 | 35 / 40 |
Visual aestheticsSubscores
| Scoring dimension | muse-wonderhigh | muse-wonderxhigh |
|---|---|---|
| Composition | 19 / 20 | 20 / 20 |
| Spacing and alignment | 17 / 20 | 17 / 20 |
| Typography and expression | 17 / 20 | 18 / 20 |
| Color and surfaces | 19 / 20 | 19 / 20 |
| Control styling | 16 / 20 | 16 / 20 |
Subscores retain their original scale; the axis score uses a consistent conversion.
MaintainabilitySubscores
| Scoring dimension | muse-wonderhigh | muse-wonderxhigh |
|---|---|---|
| Semantic clarity | 15 / 20 | 15 / 20 |
| Control-flow organization | 20 / 20 | 19 / 20 |
| Locality of changes | 15 / 20 | 15 / 20 |
| State and lifecycle | 17 / 20 | 17 / 20 |
| Implementation economy | 17 / 20 | 17 / 20 |
Subscores retain their original scale; the axis score uses a consistent conversion.