Compare / Claude Fable 5.1 vs Muse Wonder
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Muse Wonder
Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 60 results on 4 sources that measured both models.
Of the 60 results both models have, the better value on each. Results whose reported ranges overlap are too close to call.
Results as of 13 October 2026 (catalogue release 2026-10-13-2e2420e3c5cc). See also Anthropic vs Meta, every model from both labs.
Claude Fable 5.1 or Muse Wonder? The short answer
They score about the same, so pick Muse Wonder: it costs 2.7 times less per product listing on CatalogBench.
- Spring Prompt overall: Claude Fable 5.1 66, Muse Wonder 70 (out of 100; how the score works).
- Muse Wonder is cheaper to run: $0.036 against $0.099 per product listing on CatalogBench (2.7 times less).
- Muse Wonder is newer: released 12 Oct 2026, against 1 Sep 2026 for Claude Fable 5.1.
- On our own benchmarks, on the results both models have: Claude Fable 5.1 does better for marketing planning; Muse Wonder for product listings.
Head to head
Every fact side by side
| Claude Fable 5.1 | Muse Wonder | |
|---|---|---|
| Price per million tokens | $10.00 in · $50.00 out | $4.00 in · $20.00 out |
| Blended (3 in : 1 out) | $20.00 | $8.00 |
| Cheapest host, blended | $20.00 (Amazon Bedrock) | – |
| Cost per product listing (CatalogBench) | $0.099 | $0.036 |
| Cached input, per million | $0.25 cached input | $0.20 cached input |
| Intelligence Index | 53.4 | – |
| Spring Prompt overall | 66 | 70 |
| Output speed, tokens a second | 67 | – |
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens |
| Released | 1 Sep 2026 | 12 Oct 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
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 Wonder |
|---|---|---|
| BulletBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per game · Blitz 3+2US dollars, lower is better 14 · 12 of 14 measured | $0.38 | $0.27 |
| Games lost on time · Blitz 3+2% of games, lower is better 7 · 14 of 14 measured | 37.5% | 75.0% |
| Invalid moves · Blitz 3+2% of moves, lower is better 1 · 1 of 14 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per productUS dollars, lower is better 21 · 17 of 21 measured | $0.0991 | $0.0361 |
| Reliably publish-ready% of products, higher is better 15 · 3 of 21 measured | 26.8% | 66.1% |
| Reliably publish-ready · sales brief% of products, higher is better 14 · 4 of 21 measured | 5.4% | 51.8% |
| DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per deckUS dollars, lower is better 19 · 14 of 20 measured | $0.81 | $0.18 |
| 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. 7 · 8 of 20 measured | 1,278 | 1,273 |
| Accurate decks% of tasks, higher is better 6 · 1 of 20 measured | 66.7% | 100.0% |
| ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Overall scorescore out of 100, higher is better 6 · 10 of 20 measured | 51.5 | 38.9 |
| Audience scorescore out of 100, higher is better 4 · 12 of 20 measured | 67.7 | 54.7 |
| Business scorescore out of 100, higher is better 6 · 10 of 20 measured | 52.3 | 34.5 |
Show all 60 results (48 more)
| Measure | Claude Fable 5.1 | Muse Wonder |
|---|---|---|
| BulletBench measured by Spring Prompt · 2 results | ||
| Ladder Elo · Blitz 3+2ladder Elo, higher is better 13 · 13 of 14 measured | 358 | 358 |
| Median move time · Blitz 3+2milliseconds, lower is better 7 · 12 of 14 measured | 5.4 s | 7.1 s |
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 27 results | ||
| Channel compliance% of products, higher is better 1 · 14 of 21 measured | 100.0% | 99.4% |
| Channel rules broken% of products, lower is better 1 · 11 of 21 measured | 0.0% | 0.6% |
| Channel rules broken · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 21 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Claims to check% of products, lower is better 14 · 1 of 21 measured | 0.6% | 0.0% |
| Claims to check · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 21 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Conflicts caught% of conflicts, higher is better 1 · 1 of 21 measured | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| Content quality% of checks, higher is better 9 · 3 of 21 measured | 97.6% | 98.3% |
| Content quality · sales brief% of checks, higher is better 11 · 3 of 21 measured | 97.2% | 98.5% |
| Decision accuracy% of decisions, higher is better 13 · 3 of 21 measured | 95.9% | 98.3% |
| Failed outputs% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 21 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Failed outputs · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 21 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Field accuracy% of missing fields, higher is better 3 · 1 of 21 measured | 94.7% | 96.1% |
| Invented values% of filled values, lower is better 5 · 11 of 21 measured | 0.7% | 1.4% |
| Missing UK information% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 21 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Missing UK information · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 21 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Not findable% of products, lower is better 2 · 4 of 21 measured | 1.8% | 3.6% |
| Not findable · sales brief% of products, lower is better 2 · 8 of 21 measured | 1.8% | 3.6% |
| Publish-ready listings% of products, higher is better 15 · 3 of 21 measured | 46.4% | 75.0% |
| Publish-ready listings · sales brief% of products, higher is better 16 · 5 of 21 measured | 13.7% | 67.3% |
| Unsupported claimsclaims per product, lower is better 18 · 4 of 21 measured | 1.23 | 0.21 |
| Unsupported claims% of products, lower is better 18 · 4 of 21 measured | 48.8% | 7.1% |
| Unsupported claims · sales briefclaims per product, lower is better 19 · 5 of 21 measured | 3.86 | 0.36 |
| Unsupported claims · sales brief% of products, lower is better 19 · 5 of 21 measured | 83.9% | 17.9% |
| Wrong attributes% of products, lower is better 1 · 2 of 21 measured | 11.9% | 13.1% |
| Wrong attributes · sales brief% of products, lower is better 6 · 4 of 21 measured | 14.9% | 14.3% |
| Wrong category or variant% of products, lower is better 10 · 10 of 21 measured | 2.4% | 2.4% |
| Wrong category or variant · sales brief% of products, lower is better 4 · 10 of 21 measured | 1.8% | 2.4% |
| DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 13 results | ||
| Caveat dropped% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 20 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Clean layout% of tasks, higher is better 13 · 18 of 20 measured | 33.3% | 16.7% |
| Design quality% of the maximum, higher is better 11 · 9 of 20 measured | 66.6% | 67.1% |
| Draft figure quoted% of tasks, lower is better 12 · 1 of 20 measured | 33.3% | 0.0% |
| Findings missing% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 20 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 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. 6 · 10 of 20 measured | 72.6% | 63.2% |
| Layout defects% of tasks, lower is better 13 · 18 of 20 measured | 66.7% | 83.3% |
| Misleading metric used% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 20 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Presentable decks% of tasks, higher is better 5 · 10 of 20 measured | 33.3% | 16.7% |
| Recommendation late or wrong% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 20 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Slides needing work% of tasks, lower is better 10 · 15 of 20 measured | 50.0% | 66.7% |
| Unsupported claims% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 20 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Unsupported numbers% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 20 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 6 results | ||
| Consistency scorescore out of 100, higher is better 7 · 12 of 20 measured | 33.3 | 25.9 |
| Contribution profitsimulated US dollars, higher is better 1 · 11 of 20 measured | $965,271 | $489,176 |
| Cost of a runUS dollars, lower is better 20 · 15 of 20 measured | $2.49 | $0.57 |
| Months over budgetmonths of 12, lower is better 1 · 1 of 20 measured | 0 | 0 |
| Planning scorescore out of 100, higher is better 17 · 4 of 20 measured | 54.6 | 55.0 |
| Return on ad spendprofit per $1 spent, higher is better 7 · 11 of 20 measured | $0.64 | $0.41 |
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 Claude Opus 5.5Most intelligent available today
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs GPT-6 SolJust above overall
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Muse Spark 1.3Just below overall
- Muse Wonder vs Claude Opus 5.5Highest-scoring overall at $3–10 per million tokens
- Muse Wonder vs GPT-6 AstraJust above overall
- Muse Wonder vs GPT-6 SolJust below overall
- Muse Wonder vs Muse Spark 1.3Meta's best other model
Quick answers
Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Muse Wonder?
They score about the same, so pick Muse Wonder: it costs 2.7 times less per product listing on CatalogBench.
Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5.1 or Muse Wonder?
Muse Wonder is cheaper to run: $0.036 against $0.099 per product listing on CatalogBench (2.7 times less).
Which is better for product listings, Claude Fable 5.1 or Muse Wonder?
Muse Wonder ranks 4 of 21 models on sale for turning a sparse product feed and photos into listings that can go live, against 16 for Claude Fable 5.1.
Which is better for decks from an analysis, Claude Fable 5.1 or Muse Wonder?
Claude Fable 5.1 ranks 7 of 20 models on sale for turning a finished analysis into a deck you could present as it is, against 8 for Muse Wonder.
Which is better for marketing planning, Claude Fable 5.1 or Muse Wonder?
Claude Fable 5.1 ranks 6 of 20 models on sale for planning a year of ad spend without overspending, against 10 for Muse Wonder.
Which is better for speed under pressure, Claude Fable 5.1 or Muse Wonder?
Muse Wonder ranks 12 of 25 models on sale for good decisions against a real clock (fast chess), against 25 for Claude Fable 5.1.
Which has the bigger context window, Claude Fable 5.1 or Muse Wonder?
Muse Wonder: 1,048,576 tokens, against 1,000,000 for Claude Fable 5.1.
Run Claude Fable 5.1 and Muse Wonder on your own prompt
Benchmarks aren't your data. Try both side by side in the playground, with the cost of every answer.