Claude Opus 5 vs Muse Wonder Full
As of 18 Oct 2026, Claude Opus 5 (high) and Muse Wonder Full (max) are level on quality (68.0 vs 68.6) and close on price, so pick on the category that matters to you.
Claude Opus 5 
Muse Wonder Full Key differences
- Claude Opus 5 (high) and Muse Wonder Full (max) are level on quality (68.0 vs 68.6).
- Claude Opus 5 (high) is stronger in agents & tools, coding, human preference, knowledge, maths, multimodal.
- Muse Wonder Full (max) is stronger in composite, long context, reasoning.
Choose Claude Opus 5 (high) if
- knowledge is the priority (77 vs 71 on the category score)
- coding is the priority (69 vs 64 on the category score)
Choose Muse Wonder Full (max) if
- reasoning is the priority (95 vs 72 on the category score)
- long context is the priority (67 vs 65 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 Opus 5 (high) | Muse Wonder Full (max) | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning | 72.3 | 95.0 | Muse Wonder Full |
| Coding | 69.0 | 64.0 | Claude Opus 5 |
| Agents & tools | 65.2 | – | not comparable |
| Maths | 71.1 | – | not comparable |
| Knowledge | 76.6 | 71.3 | Claude Opus 5 |
| Human preference | 68.7 | – | not comparable |
| Multimodal | 66.4 | – | not comparable |
| Long context | 64.5 | 67.0 | Muse Wonder Full |
| Composite | 83.5 | 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 Opus 5 (high) | Muse Wonder Full (max) |
|---|---|---|
| Blended price per 1M tokens | $10.00 | – |
| Input / output per 1M | $5.00 / $25.00 | – / – |
| Price per task: chat reply | $0.0095 | – |
| Price per task: summarise a 30-page report | $0.075 | – |
| Price per task: code edit | $0.068 | – |
| Price per task: agentic coding session | $0.400 | – |
| Price per task: structured extraction | $0.015 | – |
| Cost to run a full benchmark suite | $3.61 | – |
| Output speed | 55 tok/s | – |
| Time to first answer | 18.8 s | – |
| Time to a complete answer | 27.8 s | – |
Every benchmark
| Metric | Claude Opus 5 (high) | Muse Wonder Full (max) |
|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 68.0 | 68.6 |
| Agents & tools score | 65.2 | – |
| Coding score | 69.0 | 64.0 |
| Composite score | 83.5 | 92.2 |
| Human preference score | 68.7 | – |
| Knowledge score | 76.6 | 71.3 |
| Long context score | 64.5 | 67.0 |
| Maths score | 71.1 | – |
| Multimodal score | 66.4 | – |
| Reasoning score | 72.3 | 95.0 |
| Blended price $/M | $10.00 | – |
| Output speed | 55 tok/s | – |
| Time to first answer | 18.8 s | – |
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| Terminal-Bench | 50.3% | – |
| OSWorld-Verified 2.0 | 29.0% | – |
| SciCode | 54.3% | – |
| WeirdML | 91.6% | – |
| Arena Text | 1490 | – |
| Arena Hard Prompts | 1514 | – |
| Arena Coding | 1533 | – |
| Arena WebDev | 1657 | – |
| Arena Vision | 1319 | – |
| AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2 | 48.1 | 55.8 |
| AA-LCR | 79.0% | 83.7% |
| MMMU-Pro | 82.4% | – |
| AA-Omniscience | 33.7 | 30.1 |
| GPQA Diamond (AA) | 93.7% | – |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | 52.8% | 53.6% |
| SciCode (AA) | 55.4% | 62.6% |
| IOI | – | 79.8% |
| LegalBench | – | 87.4% |
| Vals Index | – | 64.6 |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | – |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 88.3% | – |
| ARC-AGI-3 | 30.2% | – |
| CritPt | 28.3% | 32.9% |
| GDPval-AA v2.1 | 54.8% | 67.8% |
| τ³-Banking (AA) | 44.7% | – |
| 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% |
| Arena Maths | 1522 | – |
| Arena Creative Writing | 1471 | – |
| Arena Instruction Following | 1496 | – |
| Arena Multi-turn | 1484 | – |
| Arena Longer Queries | 1503 | – |
| Arena Search | 1214 | – |
| Arena 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% | 57.1% |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (AA) | 87.6% | – |
| AutomationBench | 53.6% | 71.3% |
| GDP.pdf | 19.6% | 32.6% |
| MLCR | 59.4% | – |
| Harvey LAB-AA v1.1 | – | 13.1% |
| AA-Omniscience: accuracy | 58.9% | 43.2% |
| AA-Omniscience: non-hallucination | 38.8% | 77.0% |
| AA-Briefcase v1.1 | 1561 | 1729 |
Data as of 2026-10-18. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
Claude Opus 5 vs Muse Wonder Full: questions
- Is Claude Opus 5 better than Muse Wonder Full?
- Claude Opus 5 (high) and Muse Wonder Full (max) are level on quality (68.0 vs 68.6). The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; Muse Wonder Full (max) is ahead overall as of 2026-10-18, but check the category scores for your use.
- Is Claude Opus 5 better than Muse Wonder Full for coding?
- Claude Opus 5 scores higher in coding (69 vs 64 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Which has the larger context window?
- Both accept 1M tokens of context.