The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

MedGemma 4B IT vs Muse Wonder Full

Muse Wonder Full leads the LLM Stats Score 52.6 to -4.8.

Google · Meta · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Muse Wonder Full leads the overall LLM Stats Score 52.6 to -4.8, ranking #12 overall.

Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.

Choose MedGemma 4B IT

  • you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune

Choose Muse Wonder Full

  • overall performance matters — it scores 52.6 and ranks #12 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning — it leads those capability indexes
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Oct 2026

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

MedGemma 4B IT
Google
Muse Wonder Full
Meta
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
-4.8
#374
52.6
#12
Reasoning
-5.2
#370
41.2
#62
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
—
—
Input price
— / M
— / M
Output price
— / M
— / M
Context window
—
—

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

2 shared
Index
MedGemma 4B IT
Muse Wonder Full
Vision
-6.8#224
31.4#31
Multimodal
-5.5#183
31.4#31
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

7 reported for MedGemma 4B IT · 16 for Muse Wonder Full

No common benchmarks found

MedGemma 4B IT and Muse Wonder Fulldon't have any common benchmark datasets to compare. They may have been evaluated on different testing suites.

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Both MedGemma 4B IT and Muse Wonder Full support multimodal inputs.

They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.

MedGemma 4B IT

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Muse Wonder Full

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

MedGemma 4B IT is licensed under Health AI Developer Foundations terms of use, while Muse Wonder Full uses a proprietary license.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

MedGemma 4B IT

Health AI Developer Foundations terms of use

Open weights

Muse Wonder Full

Proprietary

Closed source

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

MedGemma 4B IT was released on 2025-05-20, while Muse Wonder Full was released on 2026-10-12.

Muse Wonder Full is 17 months newer than MedGemma 4B IT.

MedGemma 4B IT

May 20, 2025

1.4 years ago

Muse Wonder Full

Oct 12, 2026

1 weeks ago

1.4yr newer

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.

Unable to compare the recency of their training data.

No cutoff dates available

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against MedGemma 4B IT and Muse Wonder Full side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

MedGemma 4B IT
✓ Preferred
Muse Wonder Full
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about MedGemma 4B IT vs Muse Wonder Full.

Which is better, MedGemma 4B IT or Muse Wonder Full?

Muse Wonder Full leads the LLM Stats Score 52.6 to -4.8. MedGemma 4B IT is made by Google and Muse Wonder Full is made by Meta. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits above.

How does MedGemma 4B IT compare to Muse Wonder Full in benchmarks?

MedGemma 4B IT scores MIMIC CXR: 88.9%, DermMCQA: 71.8%, PathMCQA: 69.8%, SlakeVQA: 62.3%, VQA-Rad: 49.9%. Muse Wonder Full scores MemoryBench: 85.5%, DeepSWE 1.1: 79.0%, OSWorld 2.1 (partial): 78.4%, JobBench: 75.3%, HealthBench Professional: 62.3%.

What are the main differences between MedGemma 4B IT and Muse Wonder Full?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (-4.8 vs 52.6), licensing (Health AI Developer Foundations terms of use vs Proprietary). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes MedGemma 4B IT and Muse Wonder Full?

MedGemma 4B IT is developed by Google and Muse Wonder Full is developed by Meta.

Related comparisons