GPT 6 Luna vs Muse Wonder Full
GPT 6 Luna cheaper in both pairings. Muse Wonder Full leads on quality in every pairing; directional at this sample size. 2 pairings; 24 merged changes in Stet-AI/stet. Compare the individual calls below to choose which setup to investigate.
What this comparison is
- 1 real repositoryStet-AI/stet, private; not public benchmark scores
- 24 merged changeseach run end to end by the coding agent from the repo as it was before the change
- Graded against the merged changeby the repo’s own tests and by judges comparing each patch with it
- Quality, cost and timea smaller sample than public benchmarks, but real agent work on a real codebase
Compare coding modelsLow vs high vs xhigh/max reasoning for coding agents
Recorded setup pairings
Each row is a separate recorded comparison. Scores are not pooled or averaged across effort settings. W/D/L means wins, draws and losses; undecided judgments remain undecided.
Stet score: A setup’s average chance of beating another setup on a task, from 0 to 100; 50 is even with the field.
| Setup pairing | Recorded quality call and record | Quality evidence | Cost per task | Agent time per task |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GPT 6 Luna max vs Muse Wonder Full lowGPT 6 Luna max · max reasoningMuse Wonder Full low · low reasoning24/24 tasks observed by both setups. | Muse Wonder Full low leads on quality, 4–1 head to head with 18 tied and 1 undecided (directional at this sample size); GPT 6 Luna max leads on cost: 7.7× cheaper; Muse Wonder Full low leads on agent time: 2.8× faster.Head to head, Muse Wonder Full low won 4, tied 18 and lost 1 against GPT 6 Luna max, with 1 undecided. | Directional lead at this sample size 4–1 head to head, 18 tiedGPT 6 Luna max: 46.0 (95% range 40.4–51.6)Muse Wonder Full low: 52.0 (95% range 48.4–56.0) | GPT 6 Luna max: $0.37 Muse Wonder Full low: $2.85 | GPT 6 Luna max: 59.7 min Muse Wonder Full low: 21.6 min |
| GPT 6 Luna low vs Muse Wonder Full lowGPT 6 Luna low · low reasoningMuse Wonder Full low · low reasoning24/24 tasks observed by both setups. | Muse Wonder Full low leads on quality: won 8, tied 14, lost 1, 1 undecided head to head; GPT 6 Luna low leads on cost and agent time: 53.4× cheaper and 3.1× faster.Head to head, Muse Wonder Full low won 8, tied 14 and lost 1 against GPT 6 Luna low, with 1 undecided.Not yet conclusive across all 136 comparisons on the board. | Clear lead 8–1 head to head, 14 tiedGPT 6 Luna low: 37.8 (95% range 27.8–47.7)Muse Wonder Full low: 52.0 (95% range 48.4–56.0) | GPT 6 Luna low: $0.05 Muse Wonder Full low: $2.85 | GPT 6 Luna low: 6.9 min Muse Wonder Full low: 21.6 min |
Questions about these results
- Which is better for coding, GPT 6 Luna or Muse Wonder Full?
- GPT 6 Luna cheaper in both pairings. Muse Wonder Full leads on quality in every pairing; directional at this sample size. 2 pairings; 24 merged changes in Stet-AI/stet. Compare the individual calls below to choose which setup to investigate.
- Where do these coding results come from?
- Both coding agents worked the same 24 merged changes from the private Stet-AI/stet repository, each in the real repo as it was before the change. The repo’s tests and judges graded every patch against the merged change; no public benchmark scores are used.
- Are reasoning settings combined into one model score?
- No. Each effort pairing keeps its own recorded quality call, head-to-head record, cost and agent time. Incompatible scores are never averaged.