Claude Fable 5 vs Muse Wonder
As of 13 Oct 2026, Claude Fable 5 (max) leads on quality (69.0 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 
Muse Wonder Key differences
- Claude Fable 5 (max) leads on quality: 69.0 vs 66.3.
- Claude Fable 5 (max) is stronger in agents & tools, coding, composite, instruction following, knowledge, long context, maths.
- Muse Wonder (max) is stronger in reasoning.
- Muse Wonder (max) is 2.5× cheaper ($8.00 vs $20.00 per 1M blended).
- Muse Wonder (max) streams 1.3× faster (85 vs 65 tokens per second).
Choose Claude Fable 5 (max) if
- knowledge is the priority (81 vs 73 on the category score)
Choose Muse Wonder (max) if
- reasoning is the priority (88 vs 74 on the category score)
- cost matters: $8.00 against $20.00 per million tokens blended
- you need fast output: 85 against 65 tokens per second
- the wait for the first word matters: 60.8 s against 129.2 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 (max) | Muse Wonder (max) | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning | 73.9 | 87.8 | Muse Wonder |
| Coding | 74.1 | – | not comparable |
| Agents & tools | 65.0 | – | not comparable |
| Maths | 73.0 | – | not comparable |
| Knowledge | 81.0 | 73.0 | Claude Fable 5 |
| Instruction following | 63.0 | – | not comparable |
| Long context | 66.4 | 65.5 | level |
| Composite | 79.3 | 78.2 | Claude Fable 5 |
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 (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 | $8.75 | $4.52 |
| Output speed | 65 tok/s | 85 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 129.2 s | 60.8 s |
| Time to a complete answer | 136.8 s | 66.7 s |
Every benchmark
| Metric | Claude Fable 5 (max) | Muse Wonder (max) |
|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 69.0 | 66.3 |
| Agents & tools score | 65.0 | – |
| Coding score | 74.1 | – |
| Composite score | 79.3 | 78.2 |
| Instruction following score | 63.0 | – |
| Knowledge score | 81.0 | 73.0 |
| Long context score | 66.4 | 65.5 |
| Maths score | 73.0 | – |
| Reasoning score | 73.9 | 87.8 |
| Blended price $/M | $20.00 | $8.00 |
| Output speed | 65 tok/s | 85 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 129.2 s | 60.8 s |
| Context window | 1M | 1.0M |
| GPQA Diamond | 85.9% | – |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 | 87.0% | – |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 90.2% | – |
| OTIS Mock AIME | 99.7% | – |
| Terminal-Bench | 44.5% | – |
| SimpleBench | 81.9% | – |
| SciCode | 61.0% | – |
| WeirdML | 91.9% | – |
| ProofBench | 95.0% | – |
| LiveBench | 83.0% | 81.2% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 89.7% | 90.6% |
| LiveBench Coding | 86.0% | 80.7% |
| LiveBench Agentic Coding | 62.2% | 62.7% |
| LiveBench Mathematics | 96.0% | 96.5% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 80.5% | 81.6% |
| LiveBench Language | 90.7% | 82.9% |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 75.8% | 73.0% |
| AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2 | 49.6 | 52.4 |
| IFBench | 63.5% | – |
| AA-LCR | 82.3% | 80.7% |
| AA-Omniscience | 43.3 | 25.5 |
| Terminal-Bench Hard | 62.9% | – |
| GPQA Diamond (AA) | 92.6% | – |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | 55.5% | 50.1% |
| SciCode (AA) | 61.0% | 60.3% |
| τ²-Bench Telecom (AA) | 98.5% | – |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 98.5% | – |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 89.2% | – |
| CritPt | 28.6% | 28.3% |
| GDPval-AA v2.1 | 55.5% | 63.5% |
| τ³-Banking (AA) | 38.1% | – |
| Analyst Agent (AA) | 48.8% | – |
| Chess Puzzles | 41.0% | – |
| EBR-bench | 39.5% | – |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 52.0% | – |
| PostTrainBench | 41.8% | – |
| DeepSWE v1.1 | 69.7% | – |
| LMCA | 60.3% | – |
| DTBench | 98.4% | – |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 4966.6 | – |
| GDP.pdf | 29.8% | – |
| FrontierSWE | 47.0% | – |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA) | 42.4% | 52.0% |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (AA) | 84.6% | – |
| AutomationBench | 54.1% | 68.1% |
| GDP.pdf | 24.0% | 30.6% |
| MLCR | 64.4% | – |
| EnterpriseOps-Gym | 51.1% | – |
| AA-Omniscience: accuracy | 65.3% | 41.1% |
| AA-Omniscience: non-hallucination | 36.4% | 73.5% |
| AA-Briefcase v1.1 | 1540 | 1659 |
Data as of 2026-10-13. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
Claude Fable 5 vs Muse Wonder: questions
- Is Claude Fable 5 better than Muse Wonder?
- Claude Fable 5 (max) leads on quality: 69.0 vs 66.3. The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; Claude Fable 5 (max) is ahead overall as of 2026-10-13, but check the category scores for your use.
- Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5 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 or Muse Wonder?
- Muse Wonder streams faster: 85 against 65 output tokens per second.
- Which has the larger context window?
- Muse Wonder accepts more context: 1.0M against 1M tokens.