Claude Fable 5.1 vs Muse Wonder
As of 13 Oct 2026, Claude Fable 5.1 (max) leads on quality (70.0 vs 66.3 on the BenchLeader Index), but Muse Wonder (max) costs 2.5× less, so it is the better buy unless you need the extra quality.
Claude Fable 5.1 
Muse Wonder Key differences
- Claude Fable 5.1 (max) leads on quality: 70.0 vs 66.3.
- Claude Fable 5.1 (max) is stronger in agents & tools, coding, composite, human preference, knowledge, long context, maths, multimodal.
- Muse Wonder (max) is stronger in reasoning.
- Muse Wonder (max) is 2.5× cheaper ($8.00 vs $20.00 per 1M blended).
Choose Claude Fable 5.1 (max) if
- knowledge is the priority (78 vs 73 on the category score)
- long context is the priority (68 vs 66 on the category score)
Choose Muse Wonder (max) if
- reasoning is the priority (88 vs 77 on the category score)
- cost matters: $8.00 against $20.00 per million tokens blended
- the wait for the first word matters: 60.8 s against 246.6 s to first answer
Category by category
Category scores on the BenchLeader scale: 50 is the average evaluated model, 15 points is one standard deviation. A gap under one point is called level.
| Category | Claude Fable 5.1 (max) | Muse Wonder (max) | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning | 76.9 | 87.8 | Muse Wonder |
| Coding | 75.3 | – | not comparable |
| Agents & tools | 60.5 | – | not comparable |
| Maths | 73.2 | – | not comparable |
| Knowledge | 77.8 | 73.0 | Claude Fable 5.1 |
| Human preference | 70.1 | – | not comparable |
| Multimodal | 67.0 | – | not comparable |
| Long context | 67.9 | 65.5 | Claude Fable 5.1 |
| Composite | 82.1 | 78.2 | Claude Fable 5.1 |
Price, speed and latency
List prices blended at three input tokens per output token. Per-task prices use the token counts on the methodology page; suite cost is what Artificial Analysis paid to run its whole Intelligence Index.
| Measure | Claude Fable 5.1 (max) | Muse Wonder (max) |
|---|---|---|
| Blended price per 1M tokens | $20.00 | $8.00 |
| Input / output per 1M | $10.00 / $50.00 | $4.00 / $20.00 |
| Price per task: chat reply | $0.019 | $0.0076 |
| Price per task: summarise a 30-page report | $0.150 | $0.060 |
| Price per task: code edit | $0.135 | $0.054 |
| Price per task: agentic coding session | $0.800 | $0.320 |
| Price per task: structured extraction | $0.030 | $0.012 |
| Cost to run a full benchmark suite | $7.63 | $4.52 |
| Output speed | 67 tok/s | 85 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 246.6 s | 60.8 s |
| Time to a complete answer | 254.1 s | 66.7 s |
Every benchmark
| Metric | Claude Fable 5.1 (max) | Muse Wonder (max) |
|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 70.0 | 66.3 |
| Agents & tools score | 60.5 | – |
| Coding score | 75.3 | – |
| Composite score | 82.1 | 78.2 |
| Human preference score | 70.1 | – |
| Knowledge score | 77.8 | 73.0 |
| Long context score | 67.9 | 65.5 |
| Maths score | 73.2 | – |
| Multimodal score | 67.0 | – |
| Reasoning score | 76.9 | 87.8 |
| Blended price $/M | $20.00 | $8.00 |
| Output speed | 67 tok/s | 85 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 246.6 s | 60.8 s |
| Context window | 1M | 1.0M |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 | 90.2% | – |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 87.8% | – |
| OTIS Mock AIME | 100.0% | – |
| SimpleQA Verified | 70.8% | – |
| Terminal-Bench | 57.9% | – |
| SciCode | 63.1% | – |
| WeirdML | 92.9% | – |
| ProofBench | 100.0% | – |
| LMArena Text | 1501 | – |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1521 | – |
| LMArena Coding | 1534 | – |
| LMArena WebDev | 1744 | – |
| LMArena Vision | 1318 | – |
| LMArena Agent | 12.7 | – |
| LiveBench | 83.4% | 81.2% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 91.7% | 90.6% |
| LiveBench Coding | 86.4% | 80.7% |
| LiveBench Agentic Coding | 66.1% | 62.7% |
| LiveBench Mathematics | 97.0% | 96.5% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 80.3% | 81.6% |
| LiveBench Language | 89.5% | 82.9% |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 73.0% | 73.0% |
| AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2 | 53.4 | 52.4 |
| AA-LCR | 85.3% | 80.7% |
| AA-Omniscience | 43.5 | 25.5 |
| GPQA Diamond (AA) | 93.7% | – |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | 59.1% | 50.1% |
| SciCode (AA) | 63.1% | 60.3% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | – |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90.0% | – |
| CritPt | 29.7% | 28.3% |
| GDPval-AA v2.1 | 62.8% | 63.5% |
| τ³-Banking (AA) | 47.2% | – |
| ITBench SRE (AA) | 49.5% | – |
| Analyst Agent (AA) | 57.5% | – |
| CUA-bench | 13.2% | – |
| LMArena Maths | 1522 | – |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1483 | – |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1498 | – |
| LMArena Multi-turn | 1485 | – |
| LMArena Longer Queries | 1509 | – |
| LMArena Document | 1493 | – |
| Chess Puzzles | 47.0% | – |
| EBR-bench | 57.1% | – |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 58.0% | – |
| CursorBench | 51.8% | – |
| GDP.pdf | 27.6% | – |
| FrontierSWE | 56.3% | – |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA) | 52.0% | 52.0% |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (AA) | 91.4% | – |
| AutomationBench | 59.4% | 68.1% |
| GDP.pdf | 26.2% | 30.6% |
| MLCR | 71.1% | – |
| Harvey LAB-AA v1.1 | 6.4% | – |
| AA-Omniscience: accuracy | 67.2% | 41.1% |
| AA-Omniscience: non-hallucination | 27.4% | 73.5% |
| AA-Briefcase v1.1 | 1675 | 1659 |
| FrontierCode 1.1 (AA) | 49.0% | – |
| Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (AA) | 43.3% | – |
| AA Cyber Index | 2501.9% | – |
| CWE-Bench (AA) | 50.8% | – |
| DeepSec-Bench (AA) | 23.5% | – |
| CyberGym end-to-end (AA) | 0.8% | – |
| AA-3D | 1131 | – |
Data as of 2026-10-13. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Muse Wonder: questions
- Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Muse Wonder?
- Claude Fable 5.1 (max) leads on quality: 70.0 vs 66.3. The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; Claude Fable 5.1 (max) is ahead overall as of 2026-10-13, but check the category scores for your use.
- Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5.1 or Muse Wonder?
- Muse Wonder is cheaper: $8.00 against $20.00 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token.
- Which is faster, Claude Fable 5.1 or Muse Wonder?
- Muse Wonder streams faster: 85 against 67 output tokens per second.
- Which has the larger context window?
- Muse Wonder accepts more context: 1.0M against 1M tokens.