Claude Fable 5.1 vs Muse Wonder Full
As of 18 Oct 2026, Claude Fable 5.1 (max) is the better pick for most workloads: it leads on quality (69.9 vs 68.6 on the BenchLeader Index).
Claude Fable 5.1 
Muse Wonder Full Key differences
- Claude Fable 5.1 (max) leads on quality: 69.9 vs 68.6.
- Claude Fable 5.1 (max) is stronger in agents & tools, coding, human preference, knowledge, long context, maths, multimodal.
- Muse Wonder Full (max) is stronger in composite, reasoning.
Choose Claude Fable 5.1 (max) if
- coding is the priority (75 vs 64 on the category score)
- knowledge is the priority (77 vs 71 on the category score)
Choose Muse Wonder Full (max) if
- reasoning is the priority (95 vs 77 on the category score)
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 Full (max) | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning | 76.8 | 95.0 | Muse Wonder Full |
| Coding | 75.1 | 64.0 | Claude Fable 5.1 |
| Agents & tools | 60.6 | – | not comparable |
| Maths | 72.9 | – | not comparable |
| Knowledge | 77.4 | 71.3 | Claude Fable 5.1 |
| Human preference | 70.2 | – | not comparable |
| Multimodal | 67.0 | – | not comparable |
| Long context | 67.8 | 67.0 | level |
| Composite | 82.0 | 92.2 | Muse Wonder Full |
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 Full (max) |
|---|---|---|
| Blended price per 1M tokens | $20.00 | – |
| Input / output per 1M | $10.00 / $50.00 | – / – |
| Price per task: chat reply | $0.019 | – |
| Price per task: summarise a 30-page report | $0.150 | – |
| Price per task: code edit | $0.135 | – |
| Price per task: agentic coding session | $0.800 | – |
| Price per task: structured extraction | $0.030 | – |
| Cost to run a full benchmark suite | $7.63 | – |
| Output speed | 71 tok/s | – |
| Time to first answer | 173.6 s | – |
| Time to a complete answer | 180.7 s | – |
Every benchmark
| Metric | Claude Fable 5.1 (max) | Muse Wonder Full (max) |
|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 69.9 | 68.6 |
| Agents & tools score | 60.6 | – |
| Coding score | 75.1 | 64.0 |
| Composite score | 82.0 | 92.2 |
| Human preference score | 70.2 | – |
| Knowledge score | 77.4 | 71.3 |
| Long context score | 67.8 | 67.0 |
| Maths score | 72.9 | – |
| Multimodal score | 67.0 | – |
| Reasoning score | 76.8 | 95.0 |
| Blended price $/M | $20.00 | – |
| Output speed | 71 tok/s | – |
| Time to first answer | 173.6 s | – |
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| 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% | – |
| Arena Text | 1502 | – |
| Arena Hard Prompts | 1521 | – |
| Arena Coding | 1537 | – |
| Arena WebDev | 1741 | – |
| Arena Vision | 1318 | – |
| Arena Agent | 14 | – |
| LiveBench | 83.4% | – |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 91.7% | – |
| LiveBench Coding | 86.4% | – |
| LiveBench Agentic Coding | 66.1% | – |
| LiveBench Mathematics | 97.0% | – |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 80.3% | – |
| LiveBench Language | 89.5% | – |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 73.0% | – |
| AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2 | 53.4 | 55.8 |
| AA-LCR | 85.3% | 83.7% |
| AA-Omniscience | 43.5 | 30.1 |
| GPQA Diamond (AA) | 93.7% | – |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | 59.1% | 53.6% |
| SciCode (AA) | 63.1% | 62.6% |
| IOI | – | 79.8% |
| LegalBench | – | 87.4% |
| Vals Index | – | 64.6 |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | – |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90.0% | – |
| CritPt | 29.7% | 32.9% |
| GDPval-AA v2.1 | 62.7% | 67.8% |
| τ³-Banking (AA) | 47.2% | – |
| ITBench SRE (AA) | 49.5% | – |
| Analyst Agent (AA) | 57.5% | – |
| BioMysteryBench | – | 73.3% |
| Code Migration | – | 61.0% |
| CUA-bench | 13.2% | – |
| CyberBench | – | 73.6% |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark | – | 71.9% |
| Finance Agent v2 | – | 59.1% |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark | – | 21.7% |
| Legal Research Bench | – | 53.4% |
| MedCode | – | 49.9% |
| MedScribe | – | 89.3% |
| MysteryMechanism | – | 35.1% |
| ProgramBench | – | 0.5% |
| Public Benefits Bench | – | 73.8% |
| SREBench | – | 11.8% |
| Tax Agent Bench | – | 43.0% |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals) | – | 58.1% |
| Terminal-Bench Science | – | 37.1% |
| Vibe Code Bench 1-100 | – | 34.0% |
| Vibe Code Bench v1.1 | – | 86.0% |
| Arena Maths | 1525 | – |
| Arena Creative Writing | 1485 | – |
| Arena Instruction Following | 1499 | – |
| Arena Multi-turn | 1487 | – |
| Arena Longer Queries | 1509 | – |
| Arena Document | 1493 | – |
| Chess Puzzles | 48.0% | – |
| 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% | 57.1% |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (AA) | 91.4% | – |
| AutomationBench | 59.4% | 71.3% |
| GDP.pdf | 26.2% | 32.6% |
| MLCR | 71.1% | – |
| Harvey LAB-AA v1.1 | 6.4% | 13.1% |
| AA-Omniscience: accuracy | 67.2% | 43.2% |
| AA-Omniscience: non-hallucination | 27.4% | 77.0% |
| AA-Briefcase v1.1 | 1672 | 1729 |
| 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 | 1133 | – |
Data as of 2026-10-18. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Muse Wonder Full: questions
- Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Muse Wonder Full?
- Claude Fable 5.1 (max) leads on quality: 69.9 vs 68.6. The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; Claude Fable 5.1 (max) is ahead overall as of 2026-10-18, but check the category scores for your use.
- Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Muse Wonder Full for coding?
- Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in coding (75 vs 64 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Which has the larger context window?
- Both accept 1M tokens of context.