Claude Opus 5 vs Muse Wonder
As of 13 Oct 2026, Claude Opus 5 (high) leads on quality (68.2 vs 66.3 on the BenchLeader Index), but Muse Wonder (max) costs 1.3× less, so it is the better buy unless you need the extra quality.
Claude Opus 5 
Muse Wonder Key differences
- Claude Opus 5 (high) leads on quality: 68.2 vs 66.3.
- Claude Opus 5 (high) is stronger in agents & tools, coding, composite, human preference, knowledge, maths, multimodal.
- Muse Wonder (max) is stronger in long context, reasoning.
- Muse Wonder (max) is 1.3× cheaper ($8.00 vs $10.00 per 1M blended).
- Muse Wonder (max) streams 1.6× faster (85 vs 53 tokens per second).
Choose Claude Opus 5 (high) if
- knowledge is the priority (77 vs 73 on the category score)
- the wait for the first word matters: 24.5 s against 60.8 s to first answer
Choose Muse Wonder (max) if
- reasoning is the priority (88 vs 73 on the category score)
- cost matters: $8.00 against $10.00 per million tokens blended
- you need fast output: 85 against 53 tokens per second
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 (high) | Muse Wonder (max) | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning | 72.5 | 87.8 | Muse Wonder |
| Coding | 69.2 | – | not comparable |
| Agents & tools | 65.1 | – | not comparable |
| Maths | 71.1 | – | not comparable |
| Knowledge | 76.7 | 73.0 | Claude Opus 5 |
| Human preference | 68.9 | – | not comparable |
| Multimodal | 66.4 | – | not comparable |
| Long context | 64.6 | 65.5 | level |
| Composite | 83.6 | 78.2 | Claude Opus 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 (high) | Muse Wonder (max) |
|---|---|---|
| Blended price per 1M tokens | $10.00 | $8.00 |
| Input / output per 1M | $5.00 / $25.00 | $4.00 / $20.00 |
| Price per task: chat reply | $0.0095 | $0.0076 |
| Price per task: summarise a 30-page report | $0.075 | $0.060 |
| Price per task: code edit | $0.068 | $0.054 |
| Price per task: agentic coding session | $0.400 | $0.320 |
| Price per task: structured extraction | $0.015 | $0.012 |
| Cost to run a full benchmark suite | $3.61 | $4.52 |
| Output speed | 53 tok/s | 85 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 24.5 s | 60.8 s |
| Time to a complete answer | 33.9 s | 66.7 s |
Every benchmark
| Metric | Claude Opus 5 (high) | Muse Wonder (max) |
|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 68.2 | 66.3 |
| Agents & tools score | 65.1 | – |
| Coding score | 69.2 | – |
| Composite score | 83.6 | 78.2 |
| Human preference score | 68.9 | – |
| Knowledge score | 76.7 | 73.0 |
| Long context score | 64.6 | 65.5 |
| Maths score | 71.1 | – |
| Multimodal score | 66.4 | – |
| Reasoning score | 72.5 | 87.8 |
| Blended price $/M | $10.00 | $8.00 |
| Output speed | 53 tok/s | 85 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 24.5 s | 60.8 s |
| Context window | 1M | 1.0M |
| Terminal-Bench | 50.3% | – |
| OSWorld-Verified 2.0 | 29.0% | – |
| SciCode | 54.3% | – |
| WeirdML | 91.6% | – |
| LMArena Text | 1490 | – |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1515 | – |
| LMArena Coding | 1534 | – |
| LMArena WebDev | 1657 | – |
| LMArena Vision | 1319 | – |
| LMArena Agent | 8 | – |
| LiveBench | – | 81.2% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | – | 90.6% |
| LiveBench Coding | – | 80.7% |
| LiveBench Agentic Coding | – | 62.7% |
| LiveBench Mathematics | – | 96.5% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | – | 81.6% |
| LiveBench Language | – | 82.9% |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | – | 73.0% |
| AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2 | 48.1 | 52.4 |
| AA-LCR | 79.0% | 80.7% |
| MMMU-Pro | 82.4% | – |
| AA-Omniscience | 33.7 | 25.5 |
| GPQA Diamond (AA) | 93.7% | – |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | 52.8% | 50.1% |
| SciCode (AA) | 55.4% | 60.3% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | – |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 88.3% | – |
| ARC-AGI-3 | 30.2% | – |
| CritPt | 28.3% | 28.3% |
| GDPval-AA v2.1 | 54.7% | 63.5% |
| τ³-Banking (AA) | 44.7% | – |
| LMArena Maths | 1521 | – |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1471 | – |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1497 | – |
| LMArena Multi-turn | 1484 | – |
| LMArena Longer Queries | 1504 | – |
| LMArena Document | 1490 | – |
| DeepSWE v1.1 | 72.8% | – |
| LMCA | 63.7% | – |
| DTBench | 97.9% | – |
| CursorBench | 44.7% | – |
| ALE-Bench | 2164.6 | – |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA) | 46.0% | 52.0% |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (AA) | 87.6% | – |
| AutomationBench | 53.6% | 68.1% |
| GDP.pdf | 19.6% | 30.6% |
| MLCR | 59.4% | – |
| AA-Omniscience: accuracy | 58.9% | 41.1% |
| AA-Omniscience: non-hallucination | 38.8% | 73.5% |
| AA-Briefcase v1.1 | 1561 | 1659 |
Data as of 2026-10-13. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
Claude Opus 5 vs Muse Wonder: questions
- Is Claude Opus 5 better than Muse Wonder?
- Claude Opus 5 (high) leads on quality: 68.2 vs 66.3. The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; Claude Opus 5 (high) is ahead overall as of 2026-10-13, but check the category scores for your use.
- Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 5 or Muse Wonder?
- Muse Wonder is cheaper: $8.00 against $10.00 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token.
- Which is faster, Claude Opus 5 or Muse Wonder?
- Muse Wonder streams faster: 85 against 53 output tokens per second.
- Which has the larger context window?
- Muse Wonder accepts more context: 1.0M against 1M tokens.