DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs Muse Wonder 1.0
aka DeepSeek 1017 vs Muse Wonder
- FasterMuse Wonder 1.01/1 postsmedian gap ~9.7×
As stated in each post, not a controlled benchmark.
Posts
8Tank ambush scene, four affordable models: GPT-6.1 Terra, Gemini 4 Argon, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017, Muse Wonder 1.0. Posted by @RafaCrackYT.
Bionic nautilus sim, four models one prompt: GPT-6.1 Terra, Claude Opus 5.5, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017, Muse Wonder 1.0. Posted by @maker_evan.
Photoreal human eye in the browser, four models: GPT-6.1 Terra, Claude Opus 5.5, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017, Muse Wonder 1.0. Posted by @maker_evan.
Pixel-art shiba in snowy Tokyo, four models: GPT-6.1 Terra, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017, Claude Opus 5.5, Muse Wonder 1.0. Posted by @maker_evan.
Lisbon building, Muse Wonder 1.0 vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017: Muse Wonder 1.0, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017. Posted by @forge_zap.
Pixel Hello Kitty walk cycle, four models: GPT-6.1 Terra, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017, GPT-6.1 Sol, Muse Wonder 1.0. Posted by @ann_nnng.
Marble run machine, pass or fail: Muse Wonder 1.0, Claude Sonnet 5.5, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017, MiniMax M3.1 Flash. Posted by @wikiwayne.
Same prompt, separate runs
1Not a controlled comparison: prompts, tools and time differ.
About this matchup
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs Muse Wonder 1.0 in real side-by-side tests: 8 posts from X where both got the same prompt; 3 posts report cost or time. Judge coding ability from the actual outputs.
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs Muse Wonder 1.0: which is better for coding?
Which is better for coding, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 or Muse Wonder 1.0?
None of the 8 posts here names one of the two as the better result, so judge the outputs above for the work you care about.
Which is faster, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 or Muse Wonder 1.0?
1 post states a time for both: Muse Wonder 1.0 was faster in it (~9.7× faster). Times are as stated in each post; tools and settings differ between posts.
What have DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 and Muse Wonder 1.0 been tested on?
The most-viewed of the 8 posts: pixel Hello Kitty walk cycle, four models (@ann_nnng), photoreal human eye in the browser, four models (@maker_evan), tank ambush scene, four affordable models (@RafaCrackYT). Categories: 3D & Shaders, Games, Simulations, Animations/SVG.
Summary
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 and Muse Wonder 1.0 appear together in 8 posts on X: fake Genie 4 walkable world in one HTML file (@maker_evan), tank ambush scene, four affordable models (@RafaCrackYT), bionic nautilus sim, four models one prompt (@maker_evan), photoreal human eye in the browser, four models (@maker_evan), pixel-art shiba in snowy Tokyo, four models (@maker_evan) and 3 more. 7 of them are part of larger lineups with other models. In @RafaCrackYT's tank ambush scene, four affordable models, Muse Wonder 1.0 was faster (29 min vs 4 h 41 min), as reported in the post.
What each post reports
Only numbers stated in each post. “—” means the post doesn’t say.
Quick facts
| Model | Vendor | Released | Input $/1M tokens | Output $/1M tokens | Context (tokens) | Official links |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 | DeepSeek | 2026-10-17 | $0.30peak hours; off-peak is half price | $1.20peak hours; off-peak is half price | 1,000,000 | Release notes · Pricing |
| Muse Wonder 1.0 | Meta | 2026-10-12 | $4 | $20 | 1,000,000 | Launch post · Pricing |
From the vendors’ official pages, checked 2026-10-19. Standard API list prices; each value links its source and a blank cell could not be verified. The archive’s own numbers above are what each post states.
Who won where
1- Marble run machine, pass or failMuse Wonder 1.0 and Claude Sonnet 5.5 pass; DeepSeek and MiniMax fail on their second attempts.— the author’s view, @wikiwayne (paraphrased)









