Muse Wonder
Meta’s API model for long-running coding and agent work. Model id muse-wonder-1.0. List $4 / $20. Public listing pending.
Meta’s model page lists muse-wonder-1.0 on Model API. A public llmrelay channel is not bound, and this page quotes no relay price. On 15 October 2026, existing upstream keys that answered /v1/models did not list a Muse id, and POST /v1/chat/completions for muse-wonder-1.0 did not return HTTP 200. Public abilities also had no Muse row. That is a probe result, not a claim that no access path exists.
Source: Meta model page, models docs, and pricing page, fetched 15 October 2026. Cached input is $0.20 per million. Web search grounding is $2.50 per 1,000 queries, on top of tokens. The pricing page says there is no long-context premium. No relay price on this page.
What is the Muse Wonder API id, and does muse-wonder-1.0 include Muse Wonder Full?
muse-wonder-1.0. Meta’s models doc says that string is the Model API id, available in Standard mode only. The docs examples use base URL https://api.meta.ai/v1 with Chat Completions, Responses, and Messages.
Muse Wonder Full is a different id, muse-wonder-full-1.0. The same page says it is not on Model API. Setting reasoning_effort to max on muse-wonder-1.0 does not select it.
A public llmrelay channel is not bound. The 15 October 2026 probe did not return HTTP 200 for muse-wonder-1.0. Public listing is still pending.
How much does Muse Wonder cost, and is there a long-context premium?
Standard list on the pricing page: $4.00 input, $0.20 cached input, and $20.00 output, each per million tokens. Contributor mode is listed as not available for Muse Wonder on Model API, so there is no discounted contributor token rate for this id.
The same page says you pay the same rate whether the context window is nearly empty or nearly full. There is no long-context multiplier on this card. Web search grounding is extra: $2.50 per 1,000 search queries, plus the request’s token cost.
Default team limits on that page for muse-wonder-1.0 are 3,000 requests per minute and 4,000,000 tokens per minute. This page does not quote a relay price.
What is the Muse Wonder context window, and which inputs does the API accept?
1,048,576 tokens. The models doc says Muse Wonder takes text, image, video, audio, and PDF, and returns text. The model page short label is “Context 1M”.
The model page, models doc, pricing page, and reasoning doc fetched 15 October 2026 do not publish a separate max-output number. This page does not invent one. Reasoning tokens count toward the output-token budget and toward billed output tokens.
Which reasoning_effort values does muse-wonder-1.0 accept, and why does none return HTTP 400?
Documented values: minimal, low, medium, high, xhigh, and max. The models doc says the range is minimal to max. Omitting the parameter still reasons at a model-determined level.
none disables reasoning. Meta says Muse Wonder and Muse Spark do not support it, and the request returns HTTP 400. Chat Completions sends reasoning_effort at the top level. Responses nests it as reasoning.effort.
max is supported on muse-wonder-1.0. The reasoning doc says that setting does not select Muse Wonder Full.
Is Muse Wonder Full on the Model API, or only the $50 and $200 Muse Code plans?
Not on Model API. Meta’s availability table says Muse Wonder (muse-wonder-1.0) is on pay-as-you-go and in Muse Code. Muse Wonder Full is not available on pay-as-you-go. It is on Muse Code Power Usage and Maximum Usage.
The model page prices those plans at $50.00 per month for Power Usage and $200.00 per month for Maximum Usage. Power includes Muse Wonder Full. The token table leaves input, cached input, and output blank for muse-wonder-full-1.0. Standard mode on Model API says content is not used to train Meta models. Contributor mode is not offered for Muse Wonder on that API.
Is Muse Wonder benchmaxxed on the lava-lamp test and Pokémon Red?
Meta’s own model page publishes a benchmark table at max effort, except SWE-Marathon for Muse Wonder Full, which is marked xhigh. On that table, DeepSWE 1.1 is 79.0 for Muse Wonder Full and 78.8 for Muse Wonder, against 74.2 for Claude Opus 5.5, 74.1 for GPT-6 Astra, and 67.4 for Claude Fable 5.1. SWE-Marathon is 57.5 (xhigh) / 53.1 / 46.3 / 42.5 / 45.6 in that same column order. Terminal-Bench 4.0-AA is 57.1 / 52.0 / 59.6 / 59.1 / 52.0. Those are Meta’s published numbers, not an independent rerun.
User reports from the last two days, not vendor facts: r/singularity — BridgeMind On Muse Wonder: I've Never Seen A Model This Benchmaxxed In My Life (13 October 2026 BJT, score 100, 39 comments). The post says a lava-lamp test produced a red cylinder with no glass and no lava. One comment says a no-hint Pokémon Red run was still lost in Viridian Forest at turn 585 of 1000, while Opus 5.5 beat Brock at turn 271, and claims a $96 spend. Another comment says game output looked below Astra and Opus, and also claims 4× speed and half the cost. Treat the dollars, turns, and speed as that thread’s reports. This page does not adopt them as measurements.
Why do SillyTavern users call Muse Wonder's prose dry when a writing bench ranks it above Argon?
Meta’s model page does not publish a creative-writing score, and it does not mention SillyTavern. The writing numbers below are a third-party post, not a vendor bench.
A user report from the last two days: r/singularity — Muse Wonder (high) scores 1.96 on the Short Story Creative Writing Benchmark (14 October 2026, score 30, 10 comments). The title says Muse Wonder (high) scored 1.96, Muse Spark 1.3 (high) 0.56, and Gemini 4 Argon (high) 0.80, citing a GitHub writing repo. The top comment says r/SillyTavernAI testers find Muse Wonder’s prose dry and rate Argon higher. Another comment says the bench is AI-judged. A later comment says that community ranks Argon with Opus 5.5, not with Wonder. Those are preference reports, not Meta scores.
Does Muse Wonder Full on the $50 plan burn weekly quota faster than Opus 5.5?
Meta publishes the $50 Power Usage and $200 Maximum Usage prices. It does not publish a weekly percentage, a 5-hour limit, or a comparison with Claude Opus 5.5 usage on a 20× plan.
A user report from the last two days: r/singularity — Meta Muse Wonder: pricing, benchmarks and limits (13 October 2026 BJT, score 6, 11 comments). One comment says the harness feels like a budget Claude Code, and that a task using about 1–2% of a weekly Opus 5.5 20× allowance killed a 5-hour limit and 21% of the weekly allowance on Muse Wonder Full xhigh under the $50 plan. Another comment says ordinary Wonder is on the API and Full is subscription-only. Treat the percentages as that comment, not as Meta’s quota card.
Is the Personal Superintelligence Index a Meta-made metric, and does Wonder lead it?
On Meta’s model page the row is labeled “Personal Superintelligence Index” and “Internal composite index of personal and knowledge work”. Published max scores on that row: Muse Wonder Full 59.1, Claude Opus 5.5 55.2, GPT-6 Astra 54.5, Muse Wonder 54.3, Claude Fable 5.1 49.9. So Full leads that row. Wonder itself does not. These are Meta’s figures for a metric Meta describes as internal.
User reports from the last two days: r/singularity — Introducing Muse Wonder (13 October 2026 BJT, score 469, 206 comments) and r/OpenAI — Meta launches its new muse wonder model (13 October 2026 BJT, score 27, 30 comments). Comments call the index made up, note that Wonder trails Fable and Opus on the screenshot of that row, and say a SWE chart looking level with Fable and Astra still needs a real use. One comment also says they would not use a Meta AI product. That is a preference, not an API fact.
Are Muse Wonder weights open, or is the best variant subscription-only?
Closed, on the docs fetched 15 October 2026. Muse Wonder and Muse Wonder Full are hosted models. The open-weight line on the same models page is Muse Glimmer, which Meta says you download and serve yourself. It is not muse-wonder-1.0. Muse Wonder Full stays off the pay-as-you-go API.
A user report from the last two days: r/singularity — Meta pitches “personal empowerment” AI, but Muse Wonder is closed and its best versions are sold to businesses (13 October 2026 BJT, score 16, 10 comments). The post contrasts the personal-superintelligence pitch with a closed enterprise model. Comments say Muse Spark weights are not released, that Muse Glimmer is the open-weight model, and that Meta.ai was still on Muse Spark 1.1 for one of them. The Spark 1.1 product claim is that comment, not the Model API card.
Other model pages
Muse Wonder has no relay price on this page. Public listing is pending.