Claude Fable 5.2 vs Muse Wonder
Full profiles: Claude Fable 5.2 (Anthropic) and Muse Wonder (Meta): every benchmark, price and rank.
Updated · Data from 11 sources
As of 9 Nov 2026, Claude Fable 5.2 and Muse Wonder are neck and neck on quality (69.4 vs 63.5 on the BenchLeader Index, inside the ±8.1 margin), and Muse Wonder is 2.0× cheaper at $8.00 vs $16.00 per 1M tokens blended. Claude Fable 5.2 leads in every category we measure both in.
Key facts (as of 9 Nov 2026)
- Claude Fable 5.2 scores 69.4 on the BenchLeader Index and Muse Wonder scores 63.5 (BenchLeader, 9 Nov 2026).
- Claude Fable 5.2 costs $16.00 per 1M tokens blended (list price, 9 Nov 2026).
- Muse Wonder costs $8.00 per 1M tokens blended (list price, 9 Nov 2026).
Claude Fable 5.2 benchmarks 
Muse Wonder benchmarks Which to pick for…
The pick's numbers come first. Category scores on the BenchLeader scale (50 is the average model, 15 points one standard deviation). High confidence means a lead of half a standard deviation or more; under one point is called either.
| Use case | Pick | Why | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | Claude Fable 5.2 | 82 vs 77 category score | Medium |
| Chat quality (human preference) | – | Only Muse Wonder has an Arena rating (70 category score) | Not comparable |
| Lowest cost | Muse Wonder | $8.00 vs $16.00 per 1M blended; agentic coding session $0.320 vs $0.640 | – |
| Fastest first answer | Either | 3.0 s (Claude Fable 5.2 (max)) vs 3.2 s (Muse Wonder) to the first answer token | – |
| High volume on a budget | Neither flagship | A smaller model is usually the better fit: Cheapest good LLMs, Fastest LLMs | – |
Key differences
- Claude Fable 5.2 (max) and Muse Wonder are neck and neck on quality (69.4 vs 63.5, within the ±8.1 margin).
- Claude Fable 5.2 (max) is stronger in coding, knowledge, long context, reasoning.
- Muse Wonder is stronger in agents & tools, composite, human preference, maths.
- Muse Wonder is 2.0× cheaper ($8.00 vs $16.00 per 1M blended).
At a glance
| Spec | Claude Fable 5.2 | Muse Wonder |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Anthropic | Meta |
| Released | 9 Nov 2026 | 12 Oct 2026 |
| Context window (tokens) | 1,000,000 | 1,048,576 |
| Compared at | Claude Fable 5.2 (max) | Muse Wonder |
| Open weights | No | No |
| Price in / out / cached input per 1M | $8.00 / $40.00 / $0.200 | $4.00 / $20.00 / $0.200 |
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 5.2 (max) | Muse Wonder | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning | 78.4 | – | not comparable |
| Coding | 80.2 | – | not comparable |
| Agents & tools | – | 77.2 | not comparable |
| Maths | – | 70.7 | not comparable |
| Knowledge | 81.7 | 77.0 | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| Human preference | – | 69.6 | not comparable |
| Long context | 66.4 | – | not comparable |
| Composite | – | 57.1 | not comparable |
On one chart
Each domain on the index's own scale, where 50 is an average model. Click a domain to see the benchmarks behind it. Pick up to 5 models from the list.
Dashed: that model has no result on the axis it crosses; the line only joins its neighbours.
Not drawn, no result for these models: Instruction following, Multimodal.
Where sources disagree
Across the 0 benchmarks both have, Claude Fable 5.2 leads 0, Muse Wonder leads 0. Every overall index that rates both puts Claude Fable 5.2 ahead.
| Overall index | Claude Fable 5.2 (max) | Muse Wonder | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 69.4 | 63.5 | neck and neck |
| AA Intelligence Index v5.0 | 64.6 | 40.5† | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| Vals Index | 71.3† | 64.9 | Claude Fable 5.2 |
Each publisher runs its own tasks, harnesses and effort settings, so their overall verdicts can differ; BenchLeader reconciles them on one scale. † measured at another effort setting of the same model (the publisher did not test the one compared here).
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. Cost, tokens and time per benchmark task are measured: Artificial Analysis’ averages over its whole Intelligence Index run.
| Measure | Claude Fable 5.2 (max) | Muse Wonder |
|---|---|---|
| Blended price per 1M tokens | $16.00 | $8.00 |
| Input / output per 1M | $8.00 / $40.00 | $4.00 / $20.00 |
| Cached input per 1M | $0.200 | $0.200 |
| Price per task: chat reply | $0.015 | $0.0076 |
| Price per task: summarize a 30-page report | $0.120 | $0.060 |
| Price per task: code edit | $0.108 | $0.054 |
| Price per task: agentic coding session | $0.640 | $0.320 |
| Price per task: structured extraction | $0.024 | $0.012 |
| Agentic coding session, input mostly cached | $0.289 | $0.149 |
| Cost per benchmark task (AA Index) | $26.54 | – |
| Output tokens per task (AA Index) | 274k | – |
| Of which reasoning | 193k | – |
| Output speed | 72 tok/s | 82 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 3.0 s | 3.2 s |
Each model is compared at its best-ranked reasoning-effort setting. Claude Fable 5.2 (max) scores 69.4 and takes 3 s to its first answer token; Claude Fable 5.2 (high) scores 68.9 in 3 s, Claude Fable 5.2 (xhigh) scores 68.7 in 3 s. Muse Wonder scores 63.5 and takes 3 s to its first answer token; Muse Wonder (max) scores 61.9 in 21 s, Muse Wonder (high) scores 56.3 in 9 s. Higher effort means more thinking before the answer: better scores, longer waits and more tokens billed. How reasoning effort changes scores and cost.
Every benchmark
106 benchmarks, grouped by category; each name links to the board and its leaders. † measured at another effort setting of the same model, shown for reference and not counted as a win.
| Metric | Publisher | Claude Fable 5.2 (max) | Muse Wonder |
|---|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | BenchLeader | 69.4 | 63.5 |
| Coding score | BenchLeader | 80.2 | – |
| Knowledge score | BenchLeader | 81.7 | 77.0 |
| Long context score | BenchLeader | 66.4 | – |
| Reasoning score | BenchLeader | 78.4 | – |
| Agents & tools score | BenchLeader | – | 77.2 |
| Composite score | BenchLeader | – | 57.1 |
| Human preference score | BenchLeader | – | 69.6 |
| Maths score | BenchLeader | – | 70.7 |
| Blended price $/M | BenchLeader | $16.00 | $8.00 |
| Output speed | BenchLeader | 72 tok/s | 82 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | BenchLeader | 3.0 s | 3.2 s |
| Context window | BenchLeader | 1,000,000 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens |
| Reasoning | |||
| Arena Hard Prompts | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1533† |
| LiveBench 2.0 Reasoning | LiveBench | 88.8%† | 90.6% |
| LiveBench 1.0 Reasoning | LiveBench | – | 90.6%† |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 74.3% | 50.1%† |
| HLE-Diamond (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 80.2% | 39.0%† |
| ARC-AGI-1 | ARC Prize | 97.5% | – |
| ARC-AGI-2 | ARC Prize | 92.5% | – |
| ARC-AGI-3 | ARC Prize | 94.9% | – |
| CritPt | Artificial Analysis | 35.4% | 28.3%† |
| CritPt v2 hard subset (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 76.5% | 50.5%† |
| MysteryMechanism | Vals AI | 51.8%† | 27.5%† |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 51.0%† |
| LMCA | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 56.8% |
| DTBench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 95.2% |
| Coding | |||
| SciCode | SciCode | – | 60.3%† |
| Arena Coding | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1546† |
| Arena WebDev | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1650† |
| LiveBench 2.0 Coding | LiveBench | 79.2%† | 74.9% |
| LiveBench 1.0 Coding | LiveBench | – | 80.7%† |
| SciCode (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 67.7% | 60.3%† |
| IOI | Vals AI | – | 66.9%† |
| Code Migration | Vals AI | – | 62.5%† |
| Code Migration v1.1 | Vals AI | 83.3%† | 72.4%† |
| ProgramBench | Vals AI | 19.0%† | – |
| SWE-bench Multimodal | Vals AI | 62.3%† | 45.6%† |
Show all 106 benchmarks
| Metric | Publisher | Claude Fable 5.2 (max) | Muse Wonder |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | |||
| Vibe Code Bench 1-100 | Vals AI | – | 26.6%† |
| Vibe Code Bench v1.1 | Vals AI | 93.8%† | 83.1%† |
| CursorBench | Cursor | – | 50.4%† |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 59.6% | 52.0%† |
| Startrise Frontend | Startrise | – | 75.3% |
| GameBench 2 Overall | DuelLab GameBench 2 | – | 64.5 |
| GameBench 2 by reasoning setting | DuelLab GameBench 2 | – | 55.0† |
| Design Arena Website | Design Arena | – | 1368† |
| FrontierCode 1.1 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 56.2% | 46.5%† |
| FrontierCode 2.0 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 48.8% | 27.9%† |
| Agents & tools | |||
| APEX-Agents | Mercor | – | 66.1%† |
| Arena Agent | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1.9† |
| LiveBench Long Agentic | LiveBench | 82.9%† | 46.2% |
| LiveBench Browser | LiveBench | 86.9%† | 60.0% |
| LiveBench Agentic Coding | LiveBench | – | 62.7%† |
| HiL-Bench | Scale AI SEAL | – | 79.7% |
| GDPval-AA v2.1, normalised score | Artificial Analysis | – | 63.5%† |
| GDPval-AA v2.1 | Artificial Analysis | 1831 | 1770† |
| CUA-bench | Vals AI | – | 7.2%† |
| CyberBench | Vals AI | – | 80.4%† |
| Finance Agent v2 | Vals AI | – | 56.6%† |
| Finance Agent v2.1 | Vals AI | 69.5%† | 65.5%† |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1.1 | Vals AI | 5.0%† | 23.8%† |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1 | Vals AI | – | 17.1%† |
| Legal Research Bench | Vals AI | 46.1%† | 50.5%† |
| Tax Agent Bench | Vals AI | 32.1%† | 36.3%† |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals) | Vals AI | 65.2%† | 49.5%† |
| Terminal-Bench Science | Vals AI | 55.7%† | 22.9%† |
| Vending-Bench 2 | Andon Labs | – | 9432.2 |
| AutomationBench | Artificial Analysis | 76.4% | 68.1%† |
| GDP.pdf (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 24.2% | 30.6%† |
| Harvey LAB-AA v1.1 | Harvey | 7.2% | 10.0%† |
| AA-Briefcase v1.1 | Artificial Analysis | 1785 | 1659† |
| GDPx | GDPx by SemiAnalysis | – | 6.8%† |
| Design Arena Agentic | Design Arena | – | 1166† |
| Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 73.3% | 25.7%† |
| Maths | |||
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 82.1%† |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 70.7%† |
| OTIS Mock AIME | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 99.4%† |
| ProofBench | Vals AI | – | 84.0% |
| LiveBench Mathematics | LiveBench | – | 96.5%† |
| Arena Maths | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1495† |
| Knowledge | |||
| LiveBench 2.0 Data Analysis | LiveBench | 81.5%† | 81.6% |
| LiveBench Research | LiveBench | 94.5%† | 93.0% |
| LiveBench 1.0 Data Analysis | LiveBench | – | 81.6%† |
| AA-Omniscience v1.1 | Artificial Analysis | 66.8 | 25.1† |
| PRBench Finance | Scale AI SEAL | – | 58.7% |
| PRBench Legal | Scale AI SEAL | – | 58.4% |
| BioMysteryBench | Vals AI | 83.7%† | 67.0%† |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark | Vals AI | – | 67.1%† |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark v1.1 | Vals AI | 77.4%† | 72.5%† |
| Public Benefits Bench v1.1 | Vals AI | – | 70.2%† |
| EBR-bench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 31.4%† |
| GDP.pdf | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 30.8%† |
| AA-Omniscience v1.1: accuracy | Artificial Analysis | 79.1% | 38.0%† |
| AA-Omniscience v1.1: non-hallucination | Artificial Analysis | 40.7% | 79.1%† |
| HealthBench Professional (AA) | OpenAI | 67.7% | – |
| Instruction following | |||
| LiveBench Language | LiveBench | – | 82.9%† |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | LiveBench | – | 73.0%† |
| Arena Instruction Following | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1500† |
| Human preference | |||
| Arena Text | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1512† |
| EQ-Bench 4 | EQ-Bench | – | 1325 |
| Arena Creative Writing | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1494† |
| Arena Multi-turn | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1523† |
| Arena Longer Queries | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1510† |
| Multimodal | |||
| LiveBench Design | LiveBench | 85.1%† | 70.9% |
| MMMU-Pro | Artificial Analysis | – | 83.8%† |
| Code2Video-AA | Artificial Analysis | – | 997† |
| AA-3D | Artificial Analysis | 1271 | – |
| Long context | |||
| AA-LCR v1.1 | Artificial Analysis | 83.3% | 80.7%† |
| MLCR | Artificial Analysis | – | 22.2%† |
| Composite | |||
| Epoch Capabilities Index | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 162.0 |
| LiveBench 2.0 | LiveBench | 84.9%† | 70.7% |
| LiveBench 1.0 | LiveBench | – | 81.2%† |
| AA Intelligence Index v5.0 | Artificial Analysis | 64.6 | 43.6† |
| AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2 | Artificial Analysis | – | 52.4† |
| AA Progress Index v1 | Artificial Analysis | – | 335.8† |
| Vals Index | Vals AI | 71.3† | 64.9† |
| Vals Finance Index | Vals AI | 63.6%† | 61.2%† |
| Vals Science Index | Vals AI | 63.7%† | 39.1%† |
| Vals Router Index | Vals AI | – | 64.9% |
Data as of 2026-11-09. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
DuelLab GameBench 2, release gb2-20261103-eaea31df94e6 (https://benchmarks.duellab.org/releases/gb2-20261103-eaea31df94e6/), CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Scores mapped to BenchLeader model names; not endorsed by DuelLab.
What changed
- Muse Wonder: BenchLeader Index 64.3 → 63.5.
- Muse Wonder: 5 score revisions.
- Muse Wonder: 1 score revision.
- Muse Wonder: 1 new result (Startrise Frontend).
- Muse Wonder: 3 score revisions.
- Muse Wonder: 1 new result (EQ-Bench 4).
- Muse Wonder: 1 new result (Vals Router Index).
- Muse Wonder: 1 new result (Epoch Capabilities Index).
- Muse Wonder: 10 new results (LMCA, DTBench, LiveBench 2.0…).
Related comparisons
- Claude Fable 5.2 vs Claude Opus 5.5
- Claude Fable 5.2 vs Gemini 4 Carbon
- Claude Fable 5.2 vs GPT-6 Astra
- Muse Wonder vs Claude Opus 5.5
- Muse Wonder vs Gemini 4 Carbon
- Muse Wonder vs GPT-6 Astra
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Muse Wonder
- Claude Fable 5.2 vs Muse Spark 1.3
Rankings: Best LLM overall · Best LLM for agents · Best cheap LLMs
Claude Fable 5.2 vs Muse Wonder: questions
- Is Claude Fable 5.2 better than Muse Wonder?
- Claude Fable 5.2 (max) and Muse Wonder are neck and neck on quality (69.4 vs 63.5, within the ±8.1 margin). The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; the two are within the margin of error as of 9 Nov 2026, so check the category scores for your use.
- Claude Fable 5.2 vs Muse Wonder: which is cheaper, and will that change?
- Muse Wonder is cheaper today: $8.00 against $16.00 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token. No price change has been announced for either.
- Which is faster, Claude Fable 5.2 or Muse Wonder?
- Muse Wonder streams faster (82 vs 72 output tokens per second, Artificial Analysis 7-day median).
- Which is better for long documents?
- Both take about 1M tokens: Claude Fable 5.2 1,000,000, Muse Wonder 1,048,576.
- Which has lower latency?
- Claude Fable 5.2 answers first: 3.0 s against 3.2 s to the first answer token, as Artificial Analysis measures it. Reasoning effort drives most of this: a higher setting thinks longer before it answers.
More questions (1)
- When was Claude Fable 5.2 released?
- Claude Fable 5.2 was released on 9 Nov 2026.