Compare / Claude Fable 5.1 vs Muse Ember
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Muse Ember
Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 57 results on 3 sources that measured both models.
Of the 57 results both models have, the better value on each. Results whose reported ranges overlap are too close to call.
Results as of 10 November 2026 (catalogue release 2026-11-10-8342a7178929). See also Anthropic vs Meta, every model from both labs.
Claude Fable 5.1 or Muse Ember? The short answer
They score about the same, so pick Muse Ember: it costs 49 times less per product listing on CatalogBench.
- Spring Prompt overall: Claude Fable 5.1 65, Muse Ember 65 (out of 100; how the score works).
- Muse Ember is cheaper to run: $0.002 against $0.099 per product listing on CatalogBench (49 times less).
- Muse Ember is newer: released 9 Nov 2026, against 1 Sep 2026 for Claude Fable 5.1.
- On our own benchmarks, on the results both models have: Muse Ember does better for product listings and marketing planning.
Head to head
Every fact side by side
| Claude Fable 5.1 | Muse Ember | |
|---|---|---|
| Price per million tokens | $10.00 in · $50.00 out | $0.10 in · $0.50 out |
| Blended (3 in : 1 out) | $20.00 | $0.20 |
| Cheapest host, blended | $20.00 (Amazon Bedrock) | – |
| Cost per product listing (CatalogBench) | $0.099 | $0.002 |
| Cached input, per million | $0.25 cached input | $0.004 cached input |
| Intelligence Index | 53.4 | – |
| Spring Prompt overall | 65 | 65 |
| Output speed, tokens a second | 72 | – |
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens |
| Released | 1 Sep 2026 | 9 Nov 2026 (newer) |
| Weights | Closed | Closed |
| Developer based in | the US | the US |
Prices are the developer's list price where we have read it, otherwise the typical host on OpenRouter; see every model's price. Intelligence and speed from Artificial Analysis.
Which is better for what
Each model's rank among the models on sale today, for each kind of work, from our own benchmarks and licensed sources. Further right is better; the better rank is in green.
Their slides, side by side
The same brief for both: Manchester store investment review for Hearthside Coffee, an invented company. First slide of each deck from DeckBench.
From our research
- Claude Fable 5.2 review: first on our survey and ad budget tests, and one of the dearest models to run 10 Nov 2026
- The Anatomy Skill for Claude Code: A Practical Guide, Tested on Everyday Objects and Seven Models 12 Oct 2026
- Muse Ember review: GPT-6 Luna's price, better at analysis, and no Gemini Flash against a clock 10 Nov 2026
Every shared result
Each model's best result on every measure both have, grouped by benchmark, with the setting that produced it. Under each measure, every model that benchmark has measured is a grey tick, best to the right, so you can see where the two sit in the field. The headline measures of each benchmark come first; the rest are under "Show all". Green marks the better value; where a source reports ranges that overlap, neither is marked.
| Measure | Claude Fable 5.1 | Muse Ember |
|---|---|---|
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per productUS dollars, lower is better 30 · 6 of 30 measured | $0.0991 | $0.0020 |
| Reliably publish-ready% of products, higher is better 20 · 11 of 29 measured | 26.8% | 53.6% |
| Reliably publish-ready · sales brief% of products, higher is better 19 · 9 of 29 measured | 5.4% | 35.7% |
| DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per deckUS dollars, lower is better 28 · 5 of 30 measured | $0.81 | $0.0112 |
| Deck ratingrating, higher is betterThe rating weighs each win by how strong the other deck was; the win rate counts wins against whichever decks a model happened to meet, so the two can disagree. 9 · 15 of 30 measured | 1,278 | 1,193 |
| Accurate decks% of tasks, higher is better 9 · 9 of 30 measured | 66.7% | 66.7% |
| ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Overall scorescore out of 100, higher is better 10 · 8 of 30 measured | 51.5 | 51.8 |
| Audience scorescore out of 100, higher is better 6 · 18 of 30 measured | 67.7 | 60.6 |
| Business scorescore out of 100, higher is better 10 · 7 of 30 measured | 52.3 | 53.1 |
Show all 57 results (48 more)
| Measure | Claude Fable 5.1 | Muse Ember |
|---|---|---|
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 28 results | ||
| Channel compliance% of products, higher is better 1 · 1 of 30 measured | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| Channel rules broken% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 30 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Channel rules broken · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 30 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Claims to check% of products, lower is better 20 · 1 of 28 measured | 0.6% | 0.0% |
| Claims to check · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 28 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Conflicts caught% of conflicts, higher is better 1 · 1 of 30 measured | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| Content quality% of checks, higher is better 13 · 23 of 30 measured | 97.6% | 95.6% |
| Content quality · sales brief% of checks, higher is better 15 · 4 of 30 measured | 97.2% | 98.5% |
| Decision accuracy% of decisions, higher is better 19 · 20 of 30 measured | 95.9% | 95.8% |
| Failed outputs% of products, lower is better 1 · 28 of 30 measured | 0.0% | 2.4% |
| Failed outputs · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 30 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Field accuracy% of missing fields, higher is better 5 · 14 of 30 measured | 94.7% | 93.7% |
| Invented values% of filled values, lower is better 5 · 18 of 30 measured | 0.7% | 1.7% |
| Missing UK information% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 30 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Missing UK information · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 30 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Not findable% of products, lower is better 5 · 9 of 30 measured | 1.8% | 3.6% |
| Not findable · sales brief% of products, lower is better 5 · 14 of 30 measured | 1.8% | 3.6% |
| Publish-ready listings% of products, higher is better 21 · 8 of 30 measured | 46.4% | 71.4% |
| Publish-ready listings · sales brief% of products, higher is better 22 · 11 of 30 measured | 13.7% | 54.2% |
| Time per productseconds, lower is better 20 · 5 of 30 measured | 21.7 | 8.10 |
| Unsupported claims% of products, lower is better 27 · 7 of 30 measured | 48.8% | 7.1% |
| Unsupported claimsclaims per product, lower is better 26 · 8 of 30 measured | 1.23 | 0.29 |
| Unsupported claims · sales brief% of products, lower is better 27 · 12 of 30 measured | 83.9% | 33.3% |
| Unsupported claims · sales briefclaims per product, lower is better 26 · 10 of 30 measured | 3.86 | 0.69 |
| Wrong attributes% of products, lower is better 2 · 5 of 30 measured | 11.9% | 13.7% |
| Wrong attributes · sales brief% of products, lower is better 8 · 8 of 30 measured | 14.9% | 14.9% |
| Wrong category or variant% of products, lower is better 17 · 5 of 30 measured | 2.4% | 1.8% |
| Wrong category or variant · sales brief% of products, lower is better 6 · 3 of 30 measured | 1.8% | 0.6% |
| DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 14 results | ||
| Caveat dropped% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 29 of 30 measured | 0.0% | 33.3% |
| Clean layout% of tasks, higher is better 16 · 27 of 30 measured | 33.3% | 0.0% |
| Design quality% of the maximum, higher is better 16 · 21 of 30 measured | 66.6% | 56.7% |
| Draft figure quoted% of tasks, lower is better 17 · 12 of 30 measured | 33.3% | 16.7% |
| Findings missing% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 20 of 30 measured | 0.0% | 16.7% |
| Head-to-head win rate% of comparisons, higher is betterThe rating weighs each win by how strong the other deck was; the win rate counts wins against whichever decks a model happened to meet, so the two can disagree. 8 · 16 of 30 measured | 74.6% | 51.9% |
| Layout defects% of tasks, lower is better 16 · 27 of 30 measured | 66.7% | 100.0% |
| Misleading metric used% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 26 of 30 measured | 0.0% | 16.7% |
| Presentable decks% of tasks, higher is better 7 · 14 of 30 measured | 33.3% | 0.0% |
| Recommendation late or wrong% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 17 of 30 measured | 0.0% | 33.3% |
| Slides needing work% of tasks, lower is better 15 · 15 of 30 measured | 50.0% | 50.0% |
| Time per deckseconds, lower is better 19 · 4 of 30 measured | 158 | 30.2 |
| Unsupported claims% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 15 of 30 measured | 0.0% | 16.7% |
| Unsupported numbers% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 24 of 30 measured | 0.0% | 16.7% |
| ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 6 results | ||
| Consistency scorescore out of 100, higher is better 11 · 4 of 30 measured | 33.3 | 38.6 |
| Contribution profitsimulated US dollars, higher is better 2 · 13 of 30 measured | $965,271 | $621,558 |
| Cost of a runUS dollars, lower is better 30 · 4 of 30 measured | $2.49 | $0.0297 |
| Months over budgetmonths of 12, lower is better 1 · 1 of 30 measured | 0 | 0 |
| Planning scorescore out of 100, higher is better 22 · 8 of 30 measured | 54.6 | 55.0 |
| Return on ad spendprofit per $1 spent, higher is better 11 · 5 of 30 measured | $0.64 | $0.70 |
Compare them with other models
- Anthropic vs MetaEvery model from both labs, best against best
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Sonnet 5.5Cheapest with similar intelligence
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Muse WonderFastest with similar intelligence
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Opus 5.5Most intelligent available today
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Fable 5.2Highest-scoring overall at $10 or more per million tokens
- Muse Ember vs Claude Fable 5.2Highest-scoring overall available today
- Muse Ember vs Claude Sonnet 5.5Just below overall
- Muse Ember vs Muse WonderMeta's best other model
Quick answers
Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Muse Ember?
They score about the same, so pick Muse Ember: it costs 49 times less per product listing on CatalogBench.
Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5.1 or Muse Ember?
Muse Ember is cheaper to run: $0.002 against $0.099 per product listing on CatalogBench (49 times less).
Which is better for product listings, Claude Fable 5.1 or Muse Ember?
Muse Ember ranks 9 of 29 models on sale for turning a sparse product feed and photos into listings that can go live, against 20 for Claude Fable 5.1.
Which is better for decks from an analysis, Claude Fable 5.1 or Muse Ember?
Claude Fable 5.1 ranks 9 of 29 models on sale for turning a finished analysis into a deck you could present as it is, against 15 for Muse Ember.
Which is better for marketing planning, Claude Fable 5.1 or Muse Ember?
Muse Ember ranks 8 of 29 models on sale for planning a year of ad spend without overspending, against 10 for Claude Fable 5.1.
Which is better for speed under pressure, Claude Fable 5.1 or Muse Ember?
Muse Ember ranks 19 of 33 models on sale for good decisions against a real clock (fast chess), against 33 for Claude Fable 5.1.
Which has the bigger context window, Claude Fable 5.1 or Muse Ember?
Muse Ember: 1,048,576 tokens, against 1,000,000 for Claude Fable 5.1.
Run Claude Fable 5.1 and Muse Ember on your own prompt.
Benchmarks aren't your task. Test both side by side on your prompt, with every answer checked against your rules and the cost of each one.