Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Muse Wonder Full
As of 18 Oct 2026, Muse Wonder Full (max) is the better pick for most workloads: it leads on quality (68.6 vs 67.3 on the BenchLeader Index).
Claude Sonnet 5.5 
Muse Wonder Full Key differences
- Muse Wonder Full (max) leads on quality: 68.6 vs 67.3.
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 (max) is stronger in agents & tools, coding, maths.
- Muse Wonder Full (max) is stronger in composite, knowledge, long context, reasoning.
Choose Claude Sonnet 5.5 (max) if
- coding is the priority (69 vs 64 on the category score)
Choose Muse Wonder Full (max) if
- reasoning is the priority (95 vs 81 on the category score)
- knowledge is the priority (71 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 Sonnet 5.5 (max) | Muse Wonder Full (max) | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning | 80.6 | 95.0 | Muse Wonder Full |
| Coding | 69.3 | 64.0 | Claude Sonnet 5.5 |
| Agents & tools | 69.6 | – | not comparable |
| Maths | 72.4 | – | not comparable |
| Knowledge | 65.0 | 71.3 | Muse Wonder Full |
| Long context | 66.4 | 67.0 | level |
| Composite | 71.9 | 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 Sonnet 5.5 (max) | Muse Wonder Full (max) |
|---|---|---|
| Blended price per 1M tokens | $4.00 | – |
| Input / output per 1M | $2.00 / $10.00 | – / – |
| Price per task: chat reply | $0.0038 | – |
| Price per task: summarise a 30-page report | $0.030 | – |
| Price per task: code edit | $0.027 | – |
| Price per task: agentic coding session | $0.160 | – |
| Price per task: structured extraction | $0.0060 | – |
| Cost to run a full benchmark suite | $5.46 | – |
| Output speed | 140 tok/s | – |
| Time to first answer | 380.3 s | – |
| Time to a complete answer | 383.9 s | – |
Every benchmark
| Metric | Claude Sonnet 5.5 (max) | Muse Wonder Full (max) |
|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 67.3 | 68.6 |
| Agents & tools score | 69.6 | – |
| Coding score | 69.3 | 64.0 |
| Composite score | 71.9 | 92.2 |
| Knowledge score | 65.0 | 71.3 |
| Long context score | 66.4 | 67.0 |
| Maths score | 72.4 | – |
| Reasoning score | 80.6 | 95.0 |
| Blended price $/M | $4.00 | – |
| Output speed | 140 tok/s | – |
| Time to first answer | 380.3 s | – |
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| 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% | – |
| Arena Agent | 13 | – |
| LiveBench | 75.7% | – |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 91.6% | – |
| LiveBench Coding | 91.4% | – |
| LiveBench Agentic Coding | 56.3% | – |
| LiveBench Mathematics | 96.1% | – |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 59.5% | – |
| LiveBench Language | 78.0% | – |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 56.8% | – |
| AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2 | 56 | 55.8 |
| AA-LCR | 82.7% | 83.7% |
| AA-Omniscience | 32.3 | 30.1 |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | 55.0% | 53.6% |
| SciCode (AA) | 61.0% | 62.6% |
| IOI | – | 79.8% |
| LegalBench | – | 87.4% |
| Vals Index | – | 64.6 |
| CritPt | 31.4% | 32.9% |
| GDPval-AA v2.1 | 66.9% | 67.8% |
| Analyst Agent (AA) | 57.5% | – |
| 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 | 59.0% | – |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 65.0% | – |
| CursorBench | 55.5% | – |
| GDP.pdf | 31.4% | – |
| FrontierSWE | 61.9% | – |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA) | 63.6% | 57.1% |
| AutomationBench | 71.8% | 71.3% |
| GDP.pdf | 25.8% | 32.6% |
| MLCR | 75.0% | – |
| Harvey LAB-AA v1.1 | 2.8% | 13.1% |
| AA-Omniscience: accuracy | 54.0% | 43.2% |
| AA-Omniscience: non-hallucination | 53.0% | 77.0% |
| AA-Briefcase v1.1 | 1817 | 1729 |
| FrontierCode 1.1 (AA) | 45.8% | – |
| Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (AA) | 53.3% | – |
| AA-3D | 1197 | – |
Data as of 2026-10-18. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Muse Wonder Full: questions
- Is Claude Sonnet 5.5 better than Muse Wonder Full?
- Muse Wonder Full (max) leads on quality: 68.6 vs 67.3. 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 Sonnet 5.5 better than Muse Wonder Full for coding?
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 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.