Model Comparison
Kimi K3 vs Muse Wonder
Kimi K3 (max) leads Muse Wonder (max) by 184 Elo, and their 95% ranges sit 102 Elo apart. Among 80 models, each ranked by its best configuration, Kimi K3 is #10 and Muse Wonder is #16. Cost per script: $0.362 for Kimi K3 (max) and $0.309 for Muse Wonder (max).
Last updated , from board data generated at 20:08 UTC.
Picks and Verdict
PickKimi K3
Kimi K3 (max)
Pick Kimi K3 (max) when you can wait 9.9 minutes for the stronger script, since it leads Muse's best by 184 Elo with separate ranges at $0.362.
PickMuse Wonder
Muse Wonder (max)
Pick Muse Wonder (max) when substance matters most and you want the draft in 2.0 minutes, since it leads Kimi's best there by 3.3 points.
Kimi K3 writes the better script at max, and Muse Wonder scores better on substance. Kimi K3 (max) leads Muse Wonder (max) by 184 Elo with 95% ranges 102 apart, the #10 model of 80 against the #16 model. The prices are close, $0.362 against $0.309, but Kimi takes 9.9 minutes and Muse 2.0. At high, Kimi leads by 298 Elo with separate ranges and costs less, $0.128 against $0.149. The pairing I'd look at is Kimi K3 (high) against Muse at max: Muse sits 43 Elo higher, the ranges overlap, and Kimi at high costs less than half as much. Muse's high setting and adaptive, where the model sets its own level, fall 341 and 401 Elo below its max, most of that on Length Adherence. Head to head at max, Kimi wins all ten scripts, lands the length 11.7 points better and leads tone and craft by about two each. Muse's edge is substance: every Muse setting, adaptive included, scores above Kimi's best there, and at max the gap is 3.3 points. I'd take Kimi at max when the wait is fine, and check its facts myself.
How to Read the Writing Score, Writing Elo and 95% Ranges
Writing Score and Writing Elo. The Writing Score (0 to 100) is the weighted average of the nine metric scores: seven from the judges, Length Adherence from code and the Slop Score half from each. The Writing Elo is a rating from pairwise comparisons: on each script, each configuration's average across its drafts is compared with every other configuration's, and gaps within the draft-to-draft variation count as draws. Elo rewards winning often, so the two can put configurations in a different order.
Elo ranges. Each 95% range shows how far a configuration's Elo could move if the drafts had come out slightly differently. It comes from resampling every configuration's recorded draft scores on each reference script and ranking again. Comparing two separate ranges does not test the Elo gap between them: ranges far apart are strong evidence for the order, and overlapping ranges do not mean a tie. The reference scripts stay fixed, so the ranges say nothing about new scripts. The methodology page has the full description.
All Thinking Levels of Both Models
Every ranked configuration of Kimi K3 and Muse Wonder, scored on the same 10 scripts by the same four judges.
- Each row is one configuration: the model at one thinking level. The dot is its Writing Elo, a rating from pairwise comparisons of the scores on each script, and the bar is its 95% range: how far that Elo could move if the drafts had come out slightly differently.
- When two bars overlap, the board cannot order those two configurations. Bars far apart are strong evidence for the order.
- The table under the chart lists the same configurations in the same order and adds the Writing Score (the 0 to 100 consensus of the judges and code), cost, time and configuration rank (the place among all configurations on the board).
Shaded rows are the configurations chosen for the metric comparison below.
| Configuration | Writing Elo | 95% Range | Writing Score | Cost / Script | Time / Script | Reasoning Tokens | Configuration Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kimi K3 (max) | 2189 | 2146 to 2233 | 82.2 | $0.362 | 9.9 min | 18,568 | #20 |
| Muse Wonder (max) | 2005 | 1959 to 2044 | 80.6 | $0.309 | 2.0 min | 9,601 | #31 |
| Kimi K3 (high) | 1962 | 1911 to 2010 | 80.3 | $0.128 | 2.8 min | 3,081 | #37 |
| Muse Wonder (high) | 1664 | 1600 to 1724 | 76.7 | $0.149 | 0.9 min | 1,385 | #58 |
| Muse Wonder (adaptive) | 1604 | 1550 to 1661 | 76.2 | $0.139 | 0.8 min | 766 | #70 |
Cost is one script at the API list price of the route used, uncached and without judging. Time is the average for one accepted script, retries included.
Computed Findings Across Thinking Levels
Each finding is computed from the configurations above. Where two 95% ranges overlap, the board cannot order those two configurations.
- Best Configurations Head to Head. Kimi K3 (max) leads Muse Wonder (max) by 184 Elo, and their 95% ranges do not overlap (2146 to 2233 against 1959 to 2044), which is strong evidence for that order.
- Lowest Thinking Levels Head to Head. At their lowest thinking levels, Kimi K3 (high) at Elo 1962 and $0.128 per script leads Muse Wonder (high) at Elo 1664 and $0.149 per script by 298 Elo. Their 95% ranges do not overlap.
- Same Level Name, Side by Side. Kimi K3 has the higher Writing Elo at every level name both models use: high and max. The 95% ranges do not overlap at any of them. Level names come from each provider, so the same name does not promise the same reasoning budget.
- Cheapest Kimi K3 Configuration Above Muse Wonder's Best. The cheapest Kimi K3 configuration with a higher Writing Elo than Muse Wonder (max), at Elo 2005 and $0.309 per script, is Kimi K3 (max), at Elo 2189 and $0.362 per script. The two cost about the same per script.
- Lowest to Highest Thinking Level. Kimi K3 moves +227 Elo from high to max, at about 2.8 times the cost per script. Muse Wonder moves +341 Elo from high to max, at about 2.1 times the cost per script.
Writing Elo at Each Shared Level Name
| Level | Kimi K3 | Muse Wonder | Gap | 95% Ranges |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| high | 1962 | 1664 | +298 | Separate |
| max | 2189 | 2005 | +184 | Separate |
Gap is Kimi K3 minus Muse Wonder at the same level name, using each model's highest-rated configuration at that level.
Two Chosen Configurations Compared
Pick one configuration of each model to compare their metric scores, consistency across drafts and per-script scores. Each menu starts on the model's best configuration.
Scores by Metric
Kimi K3 (max) scores higher on seven of the nine metrics and Muse Wonder (max) on two. Weighted by each metric's share of the Writing Score, Length Adherence does the most to put Kimi K3 (max) ahead, with a 11.7-point lead on that metric. The weight beside each metric is its share of the Writing Score.
Consistency Across Drafts
| Kimi K3 (max) | Muse Wonder (max) | |
|---|---|---|
| Score spread across drafts (±) | 1.68 | 1.91 |
| Lowest script score | 80.0 Script 10 | 78.2 Script 10 |
| Highest script score | 83.8 Script 9 | 82.2 Script 5 |
| Range across scripts | 3.8 | 4.0 |
Spread is how much the Writing Score moves between a configuration's drafts, and lower is steadier. Green marks the better number in each row.
Scores by Script
Writing Score on each reference script. Gap is Kimi K3 (max) minus Muse Wonder (max), and the higher score is in bold.
| Script | Kimi K3 (max) | Muse Wonder (max) | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Script 1 opinion / warning explainer | 81.4 | 81.3 | +0.1 |
| Script 2 news-analysis / skeptical explainer | 82.6 | 81.7 | +0.9 |
| Script 3 personal roadmap / opinion | 81.8 | 81.3 | +0.5 |
| Script 4 short explainer | 80.1 | 79.5 | +0.6 |
| Script 5 news-analysis / opinion explainer | 83.4 | 82.2 | +1.2 |
| Script 6 founder announcement / personal origin story | 83.2 | 81.3 | +1.9 |
| Script 7 personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study | 83.6 | 78.5 | +5.1 |
| Script 8 product release announcement / personal observation | 82.3 | 82.1 | +0.2 |
| Script 9 career guide / hiring analysis | 83.8 | 79.9 | +3.9 |
| Script 10 engineering process walkthrough / presentation adaptation | 80.0 | 78.2 | +1.8 |
Scorecards and Thinking Pages
Each configuration name in the table above opens its own scorecard.
Compare With Another Model
Pick a second model. A pair with its own written match-up opens that page, and any other pair opens in the comparison tool.
Nearby Match-Ups by Best Writing Elo
Every configuration wrote five drafts for each of the same 10 briefs, from the same prompt. Generation was closed-book, with the prompt as the only source and no web search or other tools. Each judge scores every draft once: Claude Opus 5.5 at medium effort through the Claude Code subscription, GPT-6.1 Sol at medium reasoning through the Codex CLI, GLM 5.3 Flash through OpenRouter, and Jev 1.13, a typed judge from TypeSafe that answers each metric as a multiple-choice question. The channel's finished script is their reference for the voice, and it gets no score on the board itself.
← All comparisons