Claude Fable 5 vs Muse Wonder Full
As of 18 Oct 2026, Claude Fable 5 (max) and Muse Wonder Full (max) are level on quality (68.8 vs 68.6) and close on price, so pick on the category that matters to you.
Claude Fable 5 
Muse Wonder Full Key differences
- Claude Fable 5 (max) and Muse Wonder Full (max) are level on quality (68.8 vs 68.6).
- Claude Fable 5 (max) is stronger in agents & tools, coding, instruction following, knowledge, maths.
- Muse Wonder Full (max) is stronger in composite, long context, reasoning.
Choose Claude Fable 5 (max) if
- coding is the priority (74 vs 64 on the category score)
- knowledge is the priority (81 vs 71 on the category score)
Choose Muse Wonder Full (max) if
- reasoning is the priority (95 vs 74 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 (max) | Muse Wonder Full (max) | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning | 73.8 | 95.0 | Muse Wonder Full |
| Coding | 73.8 | 64.0 | Claude Fable 5 |
| Agents & tools | 64.9 | – | not comparable |
| Maths | 72.5 | – | not comparable |
| Knowledge | 80.9 | 71.3 | Claude Fable 5 |
| Instruction following | 63.0 | – | not comparable |
| Long context | 66.3 | 67.0 | level |
| Composite | 79.3 | 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 (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 | $8.75 | – |
| Output speed | 71 tok/s | – |
| Time to first answer | 102.6 s | – |
| Time to a complete answer | 109.6 s | – |
Every benchmark
| Metric | Claude Fable 5 (max) | Muse Wonder Full (max) |
|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 68.8 | 68.6 |
| Agents & tools score | 64.9 | – |
| Coding score | 73.8 | 64.0 |
| Composite score | 79.3 | 92.2 |
| Instruction following score | 63.0 | – |
| Knowledge score | 80.9 | 71.3 |
| Long context score | 66.3 | 67.0 |
| Maths score | 72.5 | – |
| Reasoning score | 73.8 | 95.0 |
| Blended price $/M | $20.00 | – |
| Output speed | 71 tok/s | – |
| Time to first answer | 102.6 s | – |
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| 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% | – |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 89.7% | – |
| LiveBench Coding | 86.0% | – |
| LiveBench Agentic Coding | 62.2% | – |
| LiveBench Mathematics | 96.0% | – |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 80.5% | – |
| LiveBench Language | 90.7% | – |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 75.8% | – |
| AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2 | 49.6 | 55.8 |
| IFBench | 63.5% | – |
| AA-LCR | 82.3% | 83.7% |
| AA-Omniscience | 43.3 | 30.1 |
| Terminal-Bench Hard | 62.9% | – |
| GPQA Diamond (AA) | 92.6% | – |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | 55.5% | 53.6% |
| SciCode (AA) | 61.0% | 62.6% |
| τ²-Bench Telecom (AA) | 98.5% | – |
| IOI | – | 79.8% |
| LegalBench | – | 87.4% |
| Vals Index | – | 64.6 |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 98.5% | – |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 89.2% | – |
| τ³-bench Banking | 39.7% | – |
| CritPt | 28.6% | 32.9% |
| GDPval-AA v2.1 | 55.5% | 67.8% |
| τ³-Banking (AA) | 38.1% | – |
| Analyst Agent (AA) | 48.8% | – |
| BioMysteryBench | – | 73.3% |
| Code Migration | – | 61.0% |
| 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% |
| Chess Puzzles | 47.0% | – |
| 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% | 57.1% |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (AA) | 84.6% | – |
| AutomationBench | 54.1% | 71.3% |
| GDP.pdf | 24.0% | 32.6% |
| MLCR | 64.4% | – |
| Harvey LAB-AA v1.1 | – | 13.1% |
| EnterpriseOps-Gym | 51.1% | – |
| AA-Omniscience: accuracy | 65.3% | 43.2% |
| AA-Omniscience: non-hallucination | 36.4% | 77.0% |
| AA-Briefcase v1.1 | 1539 | 1729 |
Data as of 2026-10-18. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
Claude Fable 5 vs Muse Wonder Full: questions
- Is Claude Fable 5 better than Muse Wonder Full?
- Claude Fable 5 (max) and Muse Wonder Full (max) are level on quality (68.8 vs 68.6). The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; Claude Fable 5 (max) is ahead overall as of 2026-10-18, but check the category scores for your use.
- Is Claude Fable 5 better than Muse Wonder Full for coding?
- Claude Fable 5 scores higher in coding (74 vs 64 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Which has the larger context window?
- Both accept 1M tokens of context.