Muse Image vs o4 Mini: which should you choose in 2026?
Muse Image (by Meta) and o4 Mini (by OpenAI) are compared below. Here is how they stack up on benchmarks, price, and capabilities, and which one to pick in 2026.
There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader.
Choose Muse Image if…
- • you need image generation
Choose o4 Mini if…
- • you need a model with explicit reasoning support
The benchmark count includes only results measured with a matching benchmark version and protocol. Arena scores are shown separately. Missing, preliminary, and incompatible data is not treated as a controlled win. Published point-score comparisons are labeled separately when protocol details are incomplete. For text-output models, the verdict also compares token pricing and context windows.
Performance benchmarks
Every value links to its source. A dash means that no reviewed result is available for that exact model and protocol.
| Benchmark | Muse Image | o4 Mini |
|---|---|---|
A 657-task benchmark of multi-step work across simulated SaaS applications in six business domains. The Artificial Analysis protocol reports a guardrail-aware score and is distinct from both the public Zapier split and the unrelated dynamic AutoBench framework. Guardrail-aware score | — | — |
A benchmark of difficult, verifiable information-seeking questions designed to measure an agent's ability to locate hard-to-find facts through web browsing. Accuracy | — | — |
A verified computer-use benchmark in which multimodal agents operate desktop applications and are graded from the resulting environment state. Mean task reward | — | — |
A human-validated subset of real GitHub issues used to measure whether a coding agent can produce repository patches that resolve the associated tests. Resolved | — | 45.0% SWE-bench |
Version 2.1 of the benchmark for completing realistic tasks in terminal environments. Harness, resource limits, and attempt count are part of the protocol. Mean task success | — | — |
A dynamic LLM evaluation framework in which models generate questions, answer them, and participate in reciprocal peer assessment. AutoBench is distinct from Zapier's AutomationBench. Weighted peer-assessment score | — | — |
The highest-quality subset of Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A, designed to test expert-level scientific reasoning in biology, physics, and chemistry. Accuracy | — | — |
A 2,500-question expert-level benchmark spanning dozens of academic fields. Tool-assisted and no-tools results are separate protocols and must not be merged. Accuracy | — | — |
30 problems from the 2025 American Invitational Mathematics Examination testing olympiad-level math reasoning Accuracy % | — | 32.65 matharena.ai |
Challenging math contest benchmark featuring the most difficult olympiad-level problems Accuracy % | — | 32.65 matharena.ai |
| Arena preference scores | ||
Human preference score for generated images | 1281 ±6 | — |
Benchmark sources
Reviewed evidence last updated 2026-08-09. Arena data last refreshed Aug 27, 2026.
Pricing, capabilities, and model facts
| Feature | Muse Image | o4 Mini |
|---|---|---|
| Context & model facts | ||
| Developer | Meta | OpenAI |
| API provider | Meta | OpenAI |
| Input context | 65,536 tokens | 200,000 tokens |
| Maximum output | 58,982 tokens | 100,000 tokens |
| Released | — | — |
| Added to Writingmate | Aug 26, 2026 | Apr 16, 2025 |
| License | Not available | Not available |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | 2024-06-30 |
| Capabilities | ||
| Inputs | Text, Image | Image, Text, File |
| Outputs | Image | Text |
| Provider endpoint accepts tool parameters | No | Yes |
| Reasoning | No | Yes |
| Vision | Yes | Yes |
| Image Generation | Yes | No |
| Video Generation | No | No |
| API performance | ||
| p95 latency | Not measured | Not measured |
| Output throughput | Not measured | Not measured |
| Writingmate shows API performance only when both models have enough observations from the same measurement window, prompt profile, and provider. Third-party latency values are not copied into this table. | ||
Data sources
- Writingmate model catalog (pricing, limits, and availability)
Catalog data last updated Aug 26, 2026.
Why Pay for Multiple Subscriptions?
Comparing Muse Image from Meta with o4 Mini from OpenAI? Instead of managing separate API keys and subscriptions, get both with Writingmate.
| Plan | Price | Muse Image | o4 Mini | AI Images | AI Video |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Writingmate Pro Most popular | $20/mo | Included | Included | Nano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & more | Sora 2, VEO 3.1 |
Writingmate Ultimate Power users | $60/mo | Included | Included | Nano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & more | Sora 2, VEO 3.1 |
Muse Image vs o4 Mini FAQ
Which is better, Muse Image or o4 Mini?
There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader.
Which model is cheaper to use through an API?
A comparable blended token price is not available for both models. Check the API pricing rows for the values that are currently published.
Which model supports more context?
Comparable context-window data is not available for both models.
Can I switch between Muse Image and o4 Mini?
Yes. Use the model selector on this page to open any current Writingmate model comparison. You can also run the same prompt with both models in Writingmate.
Related comparisons
More Muse Image comparisons
Recraft V4 Styles Pro
Recraft
Recraft V4 Styles Pro is a style-consistent image generation model from Recraft.
Recraft V4 Styles Vector
Recraft
Recraft V4 Styles Vector is a style-consistent image generation model from Recraft.
Recraft V4 Styles Pro Vector
Recraft
Recraft V4 Styles Pro Vector is a style-consistent image generation model from Recraft.
Seedream 5.0 Lite
ByteDance
Seedream 5.0 Lite is an image generation model from ByteDance Seed.
Seedream 5.0 Pro
ByteDance
Seedream 5.0 Pro is an image generation and editing model from ByteDance Seed.
Grok Imagine Image 2.0
xAI
Grok Imagine Image 2.0 is an image generation and editing model from xAI.
More o4 Mini comparisons
R1
DeepSeek
DeepSeek R1 is here: Performance on par with OpenAI o1, but open-sourced and with fully open reasoning tokens.
Muse Spark 1.2 Contributor
Meta
Muse Spark 1.2 contributor tier is a reasoning model from Meta designed for developers who want to start building at an even lower cost.
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Gemini 3.7 Flash is a multimodal model from Google for fast agentic workflows, coding, and complex multi-step reasoning.
Grok 4.6
xAI
Grok 4.6 is SpaceXAI's smartest model with frontier performance on coding, knowledge work, and STEM.
Sakana Namazu
Sakana AI
Sakana Namazu is a Japanese-specialized reasoning model from Sakana AI, based on Kimi K2.6 with additional training for Japanese language and business contexts.
Muse Spark 1.2
Meta
Muse Spark 1.2 is a reasoning model from Meta, designed for complex agentic tasks.