Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Muse Wonder
As of 13 Oct 2026, Claude Sonnet 5.5 (max) is the better pick for most workloads: it leads on quality (67.5 vs 66.3 on the BenchLeader Index) and costs 2.0× less.
Claude Sonnet 5.5 
Muse Wonder Key differences
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 (max) leads on quality: 67.5 vs 66.3.
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 (max) is stronger in agents & tools, coding, long context, maths.
- Muse Wonder (max) is stronger in composite, knowledge, reasoning.
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 (max) is 2.0× cheaper ($4.00 vs $8.00 per 1M blended).
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 (max) streams 1.6× faster (135 vs 85 tokens per second).
Choose Claude Sonnet 5.5 (max) if
- long context is the priority (67 vs 66 on the category score)
- cost matters: $4.00 against $8.00 per million tokens blended
- you need fast output: 135 against 85 tokens per second
Choose Muse Wonder (max) if
- knowledge is the priority (73 vs 65 on the category score)
- reasoning is the priority (88 vs 81 on the category score)
- the wait for the first word matters: 60.8 s against 450.4 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 Sonnet 5.5 (max) | Muse Wonder (max) | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning | 80.8 | 87.8 | Muse Wonder |
| Coding | 69.8 | – | not comparable |
| Agents & tools | 69.5 | – | not comparable |
| Maths | 72.9 | – | not comparable |
| Knowledge | 65.3 | 73.0 | Muse Wonder |
| Long context | 66.5 | 65.5 | Claude Sonnet 5.5 |
| Composite | 72.2 | 78.2 | Muse Wonder |
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 Sonnet 5.5 (max) | Muse Wonder (max) |
|---|---|---|
| Blended price per 1M tokens | $4.00 | $8.00 |
| Input / output per 1M | $2.00 / $10.00 | $4.00 / $20.00 |
| Price per task: chat reply | $0.0038 | $0.0076 |
| Price per task: summarise a 30-page report | $0.030 | $0.060 |
| Price per task: code edit | $0.027 | $0.054 |
| Price per task: agentic coding session | $0.160 | $0.320 |
| Price per task: structured extraction | $0.0060 | $0.012 |
| Cost to run a full benchmark suite | $5.46 | $4.52 |
| Output speed | 135 tok/s | 85 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 450.4 s | 60.8 s |
| Time to a complete answer | 454.1 s | 66.7 s |
Every benchmark
| Metric | Claude Sonnet 5.5 (max) | Muse Wonder (max) |
|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 67.5 | 66.3 |
| Agents & tools score | 69.5 | – |
| Coding score | 69.8 | – |
| Composite score | 72.2 | 78.2 |
| Knowledge score | 65.3 | 73.0 |
| Long context score | 66.5 | 65.5 |
| Maths score | 72.9 | – |
| Reasoning score | 80.8 | 87.8 |
| Blended price $/M | $4.00 | $8.00 |
| Output speed | 135 tok/s | 85 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 450.4 s | 60.8 s |
| Context window | 1M | 1.0M |
| GPQA Diamond | 95.6% | – |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 | 88.8% | – |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 80.5% | – |
| OTIS Mock AIME | 100.0% | – |
| SimpleQA Verified | 46.5% | – |
| Terminal-Bench | 61.8% | – |
| SciCode | 61.0% | – |
| APEX-Agents | 75.5% | – |
| ProofBench | 100.0% | – |
| LMArena Agent | 12 | – |
| LiveBench | 75.7% | 81.2% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 91.6% | 90.6% |
| LiveBench Coding | 91.4% | 80.7% |
| LiveBench Agentic Coding | 56.3% | 62.7% |
| LiveBench Mathematics | 96.1% | 96.5% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 59.5% | 81.6% |
| LiveBench Language | 78.0% | 82.9% |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 56.8% | 73.0% |
| AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2 | 56 | 52.4 |
| AA-LCR | 82.7% | 80.7% |
| AA-Omniscience | 32.3 | 25.5 |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | 55.0% | 50.1% |
| SciCode (AA) | 61.0% | 60.3% |
| CritPt | 31.4% | 28.3% |
| GDPval-AA v2.1 | 66.9% | 63.5% |
| Analyst Agent (AA) | 57.5% | – |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 65.0% | – |
| CursorBench | 55.5% | – |
| FrontierSWE | 61.9% | – |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA) | 63.6% | 52.0% |
| AutomationBench | 71.8% | 68.1% |
| GDP.pdf | 25.8% | 30.6% |
| MLCR | 75.0% | – |
| Harvey LAB-AA v1.1 | 2.8% | – |
| AA-Omniscience: accuracy | 54.0% | 41.1% |
| AA-Omniscience: non-hallucination | 53.0% | 73.5% |
| AA-Briefcase v1.1 | 1823 | 1659 |
| FrontierCode 1.1 (AA) | 45.8% | – |
| Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (AA) | 53.3% | – |
| AA-3D | 1194 | – |
Data as of 2026-10-13. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Muse Wonder: questions
- Is Claude Sonnet 5.5 better than Muse Wonder?
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 (max) leads on quality: 67.5 vs 66.3. The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; Claude Sonnet 5.5 (max) is ahead overall as of 2026-10-13, but check the category scores for your use.
- Which is cheaper, Claude Sonnet 5.5 or Muse Wonder?
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 is cheaper: $4.00 against $8.00 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token.
- Which is faster, Claude Sonnet 5.5 or Muse Wonder?
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 streams faster: 135 against 85 output tokens per second.
- Which has the larger context window?
- Muse Wonder accepts more context: 1.0M against 1M tokens.