Claude Opus 5.5 vs Muse Wonder
As of 13 Oct 2026, Claude Opus 5.5 (max) is the better pick for most workloads: it leads on quality (71.3 vs 66.3 on the BenchLeader Index) at about the same price.
Claude Opus 5.5 
Muse Wonder Key differences
- Claude Opus 5.5 (max) leads on quality: 71.3 vs 66.3.
- Claude Opus 5.5 (max) is stronger in agents & tools, coding, composite, knowledge, long context, maths, multimodal.
- Muse Wonder (max) is stronger in reasoning.
- They cost about the same ($8.00 per 1M blended).
Choose Claude Opus 5.5 (max) if
- knowledge is the priority (79 vs 73 on the category score)
- long context is the priority (68 vs 66 on the category score)
Choose Muse Wonder (max) if
- reasoning is the priority (88 vs 76 on the category score)
- the wait for the first word matters: 60.8 s against 748.6 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 Opus 5.5 (max) | Muse Wonder (max) | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning | 75.8 | 87.8 | Muse Wonder |
| Coding | 82.9 | – | not comparable |
| Agents & tools | 59.1 | – | not comparable |
| Maths | 74.9 | – | not comparable |
| Knowledge | 79.1 | 73.0 | Claude Opus 5.5 |
| Multimodal | 71.1 | – | not comparable |
| Long context | 67.6 | 65.5 | Claude Opus 5.5 |
| Composite | 84.2 | 78.2 | Claude Opus 5.5 |
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 Opus 5.5 (max) | Muse Wonder (max) |
|---|---|---|
| Blended price per 1M tokens | $8.00 | $8.00 |
| Input / output per 1M | $4.00 / $20.00 | $4.00 / $20.00 |
| Price per task: chat reply | $0.0076 | $0.0076 |
| Price per task: summarise a 30-page report | $0.060 | $0.060 |
| Price per task: code edit | $0.054 | $0.054 |
| Price per task: agentic coding session | $0.320 | $0.320 |
| Price per task: structured extraction | $0.012 | $0.012 |
| Cost to run a full benchmark suite | $5.98 | $4.52 |
| Output speed | 96 tok/s | 85 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 748.6 s | 60.8 s |
| Time to a complete answer | 753.8 s | 66.7 s |
Every benchmark
| Metric | Claude Opus 5.5 (max) | Muse Wonder (max) |
|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 71.3 | 66.3 |
| Agents & tools score | 59.1 | – |
| Coding score | 82.9 | – |
| Composite score | 84.2 | 78.2 |
| Knowledge score | 79.1 | 73.0 |
| Long context score | 67.6 | 65.5 |
| Maths score | 74.9 | – |
| Multimodal score | 71.1 | – |
| Reasoning score | 75.8 | 87.8 |
| Blended price $/M | $8.00 | $8.00 |
| Output speed | 96 tok/s | 85 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 748.6 s | 60.8 s |
| Context window | 1M | 1.0M |
| GPQA Diamond | 90.6% | – |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 | 91.2% | – |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 95.0% | – |
| OTIS Mock AIME | 100.0% | – |
| SimpleQA Verified | 72.2% | – |
| Terminal-Bench | 64.8% | – |
| SciCode | 66.9% | – |
| APEX-Agents | 73.5% | – |
| ProofBench | 100.0% | – |
| LMArena WebDev | 1813 | – |
| LiveBench | 83.2% | 81.2% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 92.2% | 90.6% |
| LiveBench Coding | 89.3% | 80.7% |
| LiveBench Agentic Coding | 71.7% | 62.7% |
| LiveBench Mathematics | 97.1% | 96.5% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 80.3% | 81.6% |
| LiveBench Language | 86.3% | 82.9% |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 65.7% | 73.0% |
| AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2 | 57.6 | 52.4 |
| AA-LCR | 84.7% | 80.7% |
| MMMU-Pro | 87.7% | – |
| AA-Omniscience | 46.4 | 25.5 |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | 61.4% | 50.1% |
| SciCode (AA) | 66.9% | 60.3% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | – |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 91.7% | – |
| CritPt | 31.7% | 28.3% |
| GDPval-AA v2.1 | 68.3% | 63.5% |
| ITBench SRE (AA) | 38.2% | – |
| Analyst Agent (AA) | 56.3% | – |
| CUA-bench | 14.0% | – |
| EBR-bench | 71.4% | – |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 71.0% | – |
| MirrorCode | 77.4% | – |
| LMCA | 68.2% | – |
| DTBench | 98.9% | – |
| CursorBench | 57.8% | – |
| GDP.pdf | 30.6% | – |
| FrontierSWE | 62.3% | – |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA) | 59.6% | 52.0% |
| AutomationBench | 69.5% | 68.1% |
| GDP.pdf | 26.2% | 30.6% |
| MLCR | 66.7% | – |
| Harvey LAB-AA v1.1 | 4.2% | – |
| AA-Omniscience: accuracy | 66.2% | 41.1% |
| AA-Omniscience: non-hallucination | 41.4% | 73.5% |
| AA-Briefcase v1.1 | 1807 | 1659 |
| FrontierCode 1.1 (AA) | 52.2% | – |
| Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (AA) | 59.0% | – |
| AA Cyber Index | 2866.4% | – |
| CWE-Bench (AA) | 58.3% | – |
| DeepSec-Bench (AA) | 26.9% | – |
| CyberGym end-to-end (AA) | 0.8% | – |
| AA-3D | 1190 | – |
Data as of 2026-10-13. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Muse Wonder: questions
- Is Claude Opus 5.5 better than Muse Wonder?
- Claude Opus 5.5 (max) leads on quality: 71.3 vs 66.3. The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; Claude Opus 5.5 (max) is ahead overall as of 2026-10-13, but check the category scores for your use.
- Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 5.5 or Muse Wonder?
- Claude Opus 5.5 is cheaper: $8.00 against $8.00 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token.
- Which is faster, Claude Opus 5.5 or Muse Wonder?
- Claude Opus 5.5 streams faster: 96 against 85 output tokens per second.
- Which has the larger context window?
- Muse Wonder accepts more context: 1.0M against 1M tokens.