BenchLeader
Menu
Best LLMsChoose a modelCoding plansLeaderboardsModelsBenchmarksProvidersReleases12

Claude Fable 5.2 vs Muse Wonder Full

Full profiles: Claude Fable 5.2 (Anthropic) and Muse Wonder Full (Meta): every benchmark, price and rank.

Updated · Data from 7 sources

As of 9 Nov 2026, Claude Fable 5.2 is ahead of Muse Wonder Full on quality (69.4 vs 62.2 on the BenchLeader Index). 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 Full scores 62.2 (BenchLeader, 9 Nov 2026).
  • Claude Fable 5.2 costs $16.00 per 1M tokens blended (list price, 9 Nov 2026).
  • Of the 18 benchmarks both models have, Claude Fable 5.2 leads 13 (BenchLeader, 9 Nov 2026).
Claude Fable 5.2 benchmarks max Anthropic Muse Wonder Full benchmarks max MetaAdd a third model

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 casePickWhyConfidence
CodingClaude Fable 5.280 vs 70 category score; FrontierCode 2.0 (AA) 48.8% vs 37.8%High
ReasoningClaude Fable 5.278 vs 66 category score; HLE-Diamond (AA) 80.2% vs 48.5%High
KnowledgeClaude Fable 5.282 vs 63 category score; AA-Omniscience v1.1 66.8 vs 30.6High
Long documentsEither66 vs 67 category score; AA-LCR v1.1 83.3% vs 83.7%Either
High volume on a budgetNeither flagshipA smaller model is usually the better fit: Cheapest good LLMs, Fastest LLMs–

Key differences

  • Claude Fable 5.2 (max) leads on quality: 69.4 vs 62.2.
  • Claude Fable 5.2 (max) is stronger in coding, knowledge, reasoning.
  • Muse Wonder Full (max) is stronger in long context, agents & tools.

At a glance

SpecClaude Fable 5.2Muse Wonder Full
DeveloperAnthropicMeta
Released9 Nov 202612 Oct 2026
Context window (tokens)1,000,0001,000,000
Compared atClaude Fable 5.2 (max)Muse Wonder Full (max)
Open weightsNoNo
Price in / out / cached input per 1M$8.00 / $40.00 / $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.

CategoryClaude Fable 5.2 (max)Muse Wonder Full (max)Leader
Reasoning78.466.2Claude Fable 5.2
Coding80.270.3Claude Fable 5.2
Agents & tools–65.8not comparable
Knowledge81.762.5Claude Fable 5.2
Long context66.466.6level

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.

2550 avg75ReasoningCodingKnowledgeLong contextClaude Fable 5.2, Reasoning: 78.4Claude Fable 5.2, Coding: 80.2Claude Fable 5.2, Knowledge: 81.7Claude Fable 5.2, Long context: 66.4Muse Wonder Full, Reasoning: 66.2Muse Wonder Full, Coding: 70.3Muse Wonder Full, Knowledge: 62.5Muse Wonder Full, Long context: 66.6

Not drawn, measured for fewer than two of these models: Agents & tools, Maths, Instruction following, Multimodal, Human preference.

ModelIndex

Where sources disagree

Across the 18 benchmarks both have, Claude Fable 5.2 leads 13, Muse Wonder Full leads 5. Every overall index that rates both puts Claude Fable 5.2 ahead.

Overall indexClaude Fable 5.2 (max)Muse Wonder Full (max)Leader
BenchLeader Index69.462.2Claude Fable 5.2
AA Intelligence Index v5.064.650.1Claude Fable 5.2
Vals Index71.3†66.8Claude 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.

MeasureClaude Fable 5.2 (max)Muse Wonder Full (max)
Blended price per 1M tokens$16.00–
Input / output per 1M$8.00 / $40.00– / –
Cached input per 1M$0.200–
Price per task: chat reply$0.015–
Price per task: summarize a 30-page report$0.120–
Price per task: code edit$0.108–
Price per task: agentic coding session$0.640–
Price per task: structured extraction$0.024–
Agentic coding session, input mostly cached$0.289–
Cost per benchmark task (AA Index)$26.54–
Output tokens per task (AA Index)274k88k
Of which reasoning193k55k
Output speed72 tok/s–
Time to first answer3.0 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 Full (max) scores 62.2. 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

70 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.

MetricPublisherClaude Fable 5.2 (max)Muse Wonder Full (max)
BenchLeader IndexBenchLeader69.462.2
Coding scoreBenchLeader80.270.3
Knowledge scoreBenchLeader81.762.5
Long context scoreBenchLeader66.466.6
Reasoning scoreBenchLeader78.466.2
Agents & tools scoreBenchLeader–65.8
Blended price $/MBenchLeader$16.00–
Output speedBenchLeader72 tok/s–
Time to first answerBenchLeader3.0 s–
Context windowBenchLeader1,000,000 tokens1,000,000 tokens
Reasoning
LiveBench 2.0 ReasoningLiveBench88.8%†–
Humanity's Last Exam (AA)Artificial Analysis74.3%53.6%
HLE-Diamond (AA)Artificial Analysis80.2%48.5%
ARC-AGI-1ARC Prize97.5%–
ARC-AGI-2ARC Prize92.5%–
ARC-AGI-3ARC Prize94.9%–
CritPtArtificial Analysis35.4%32.9%
CritPt v2 hard subset (AA)Artificial Analysis76.5%56.5%
MysteryMechanismVals AI51.8%†35.1%
Coding
Arena WebDevArena (LMArena)–1724
LiveBench 2.0 CodingLiveBench79.2%†–
SciCode (AA)Artificial Analysis67.7%62.6%
IOIVals AI–79.8%
Code MigrationVals AI–61.0%
Code Migration v1.1Vals AI83.3%†62.8%
ProgramBenchVals AI19.0%†0.5%
SWE-bench MultimodalVals AI62.3%†47.3%
Vibe Code Bench 1-100Vals AI–34.0%
Vibe Code Bench v1.1Vals AI93.8%†86.0%
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA)Artificial Analysis59.6%57.1%
FrontierCode 1.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis56.2%44.9%
FrontierCode 2.0 (AA)Artificial Analysis48.8%37.8%
Agents & tools
Arena AgentArena (LMArena)–9.1
LiveBench Long AgenticLiveBench82.9%†–
LiveBench BrowserLiveBench86.9%†–
Show all 70 benchmarks
MetricPublisherClaude Fable 5.2 (max)Muse Wonder Full (max)
Agents & tools
GDPval-AA v2.1, normalised scoreArtificial Analysis–67.8%
GDPval-AA v2.1Artificial Analysis18311857
CyberBenchVals AI–73.6%
Finance Agent v2Vals AI–59.1%
Finance Agent v2.1Vals AI69.5%†67.6%
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1.1Vals AI5.0%†23.3%
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1Vals AI–21.7%
Legal Research BenchVals AI46.1%†53.4%
Robo-benchVals AI–10.4%
SREBenchVals AI–11.8%
Tax Agent BenchVals AI32.1%†43.0%
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals)Vals AI65.2%†58.1%
Terminal-Bench ScienceVals AI55.7%†37.1%
AutomationBenchArtificial Analysis76.4%71.3%
GDP.pdf (AA)Artificial Analysis24.2%32.6%
Harvey LAB-AA v1.1Harvey7.2%13.1%
AA-Briefcase v1.1Artificial Analysis17851729
GDPxGDPx by SemiAnalysis–9.0%
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis73.3%37.1%
Knowledge
LiveBench 2.0 Data AnalysisLiveBench81.5%†–
LiveBench ResearchLiveBench94.5%†–
AA-Omniscience v1.1Artificial Analysis66.830.6
LegalBenchVals AI–87.4%
BioMysteryBenchVals AI83.7%†73.3%
Excel Modeling BenchmarkVals AI–71.9%
Excel Modeling Benchmark v1.1Vals AI77.4%†75.0%
MedCodeVals AI–49.9%
MedScribeVals AI–89.3%
Public Benefits Bench v1.1Vals AI–73.8%
AA-Omniscience v1.1: accuracyArtificial Analysis79.1%41.0%
AA-Omniscience v1.1: non-hallucinationArtificial Analysis40.7%82.4%
HealthBench Professional (AA)OpenAI67.7%–
Multimodal
LiveBench DesignLiveBench85.1%†–
AA-3DArtificial Analysis1271–
Long context
AA-LCR v1.1Artificial Analysis83.3%83.7%
MLCRArtificial Analysis–22.2%
Composite
LiveBench 2.0LiveBench84.9%†–
AA Intelligence Index v5.0Artificial Analysis64.650.1
AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2Artificial Analysis–55.8
AA Progress Index v1Artificial Analysis–343.2
Vals IndexVals AI71.3†66.8
Vals Finance IndexVals AI63.6%†64.5%
Vals RSI IndexVals AI–24.4%
Vals Science IndexVals AI63.7%†48.5%
Vals Router IndexVals AI–66.8%†

Data as of 2026-11-09. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.

What changed

  • Muse Wonder Full (max): 1 score revision.
  • Muse Wonder Full (max): 1 score revision.
  • Muse Wonder Full (max): 1 new result (Arena Agent).
  • Muse Wonder Full (max): 6 new results (AA Intelligence Index v5.0, AA Progress Index v1, HLE-Diamond (AA)…); 2 score revisions.
  • Muse Wonder Full (max): 1 new result (Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (AA)).
  • Muse Wonder Full (max): 9 new results (Code Migration v1.1, Excel Modeling Benchmark v1.1, Finance Agent v2.1…).
  • Muse Wonder Full (max): 1 new result (FrontierCode 1.1 (AA)).
  • Muse Wonder Full (max): 1 new result (Arena WebDev); 2 score revisions.
  • Muse Wonder Full (max): 21 new results (IOI, LegalBench, Vals Index…).
  • Muse Wonder Full (max): 1 new result (Harvey LAB-AA v1.1).

Rankings: Best LLM overall · Best LLM for coding · Best LLM for agents · Best cheap LLMs

Claude Fable 5.2 vs Muse Wonder Full: questions

Is Claude Fable 5.2 better than Muse Wonder Full?
Claude Fable 5.2 (max) leads on quality: 69.4 vs 62.2. The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; Claude Fable 5.2 (max) is ahead overall as of 9 Nov 2026, but check the category scores for your use.
Is Claude Fable 5.2 or Muse Wonder Full better for coding?
Claude Fable 5.2 scores higher in coding (80 vs 70 on the category index, where 50 is average). On FrontierCode 2.0 (AA), the top shared coding benchmark, it is 48.8% for Claude Fable 5.2 against 37.8% for Muse Wonder Full.
Which is better for long documents?
They are level on long-context benchmarks (66 vs 67). Both accept 1,000,000 tokens of context.
Do independent benchmarks agree on Claude Fable 5.2 vs Muse Wonder Full?
Across the 18 benchmarks both have, Claude Fable 5.2 leads 13, Muse Wonder Full leads 5. Every overall index that rates both puts Claude Fable 5.2 ahead.
When was Claude Fable 5.2 released?
Claude Fable 5.2 was released on 9 Nov 2026.