Compare / Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Muse Ember
Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Muse Ember
Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 82 results on 5 sources that measured both models.
AnthropicClaude Haiku 5.5
MetaMuse Ember
Claude Haiku 5.5 wins 2322 too close to callMuse Ember wins 37
Of the 82 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 Haiku 5.5 or Muse Ember? The short answer
Pick Muse Ember if quality matters most: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 65 against 41). Pick Claude Haiku 5.5 if cost matters more: it costs 41% less per product listing on CatalogBench.
- Spring Prompt overall: Claude Haiku 5.5 41, Muse Ember 65 (out of 100; how the score works).
- Claude Haiku 5.5 is cheaper to run: $0.001 against $0.002 per product listing on CatalogBench (41% less).
- Muse Ember is newer: released 9 Nov 2026, against 7 Oct 2026 for Claude Haiku 5.5.
- On our own benchmarks, on the results both models have: Muse Ember does better for product listings, user surveys and marketing planning.
Head to head
41
Spring Prompt overall
65
$0.20
Price per million tokens, blendedlower is better
$0.20
1,000,000
Context window, tokens
1,048,576
Every fact side by side
| Claude Haiku 5.5 | Muse Ember | |
|---|---|---|
| Price per million tokens | $0.10 in · $0.50 out | $0.10 in · $0.50 out |
| Blended (3 in : 1 out) | $0.20 | $0.20 |
| Cheapest host, blended | $0.20 (Amazon Bedrock) | – |
| Cost per product listing (CatalogBench) | $0.001 | $0.002 |
| Cached input, per million | – | $0.004 cached input |
| Intelligence Index | 43.4 | – |
| Spring Prompt overall | 41 | 65 |
| Output speed, tokens a second | 240 | – |
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens |
| Released | 7 Oct 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.
Product listingsTurning a sparse product feed and photos into listings that can go live
17 of 29
9 of 29
Decks from an analysisTurning a finished analysis into a deck you could present as it is
16 of 29
15 of 29
User surveysPlanning a user survey and reading its results without being misled
6 of 20
5 of 20
Marketing planningPlanning a year of ad spend without overspending
27 of 29
8 of 29
Agents and tool useMulti-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls
28 of 159
not measured
Reasoning and knowledgeHard questions across science, maths and general knowledge
25 of 187
not measured
Speed under pressureGood decisions against a real clock (fast chess)
19 of 32
19 of 32
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
- AI Checkpoint: Sol’s new fast lane 9 Oct 2026
- Claude Haiku 5.5 Is Far Better Than Haiku 4.5 at a Tenth of the Price. GPT-6 Luna Still Beats It at Business Work. 8 Oct 2026
- Muse Ember review: GPT-6 Luna's price, better at analysis, and no Gemini Flash against a clock 10 Nov 2026
- How to Test AI Hallucinations in Business Content 20 Oct 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 Haiku 5.5 | Muse Ember |
|---|---|---|
| BulletBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per game · Bullet 60sUS dollars, lower is better 7 · 13 of 38 measured | $0.0019no reasoning | $0.0038minimal reasoning |
| Ladder Elo · Bullet 60sladder Elo, higher is better 27 · 27 of 38 measured | 310no reasoning | 310minimal reasoning |
| Games lost on time · Bullet 60s% of games, lower is better 18 · 27 of 38 measured | 37.5%no reasoning | 62.5%minimal reasoning |
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per productUS dollars, lower is better 4 · 6 of 30 measured | $0.0012 | $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 15 · 9 of 29 measured | 10.7% | 35.7% |
| DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per deckUS dollars, lower is better 4 · 5 of 30 measured | $0.0091 | $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. 16 · 15 of 30 measured | 1,151 | 1,193 |
| Accurate decks% of tasks, higher is better 18 · 9 of 30 measured | 33.3% | 66.7% |
| ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Overall scorescore out of 100, higher is better 28 · 8 of 30 measured | 24.1 | 51.8 |
| Audience scorescore out of 100, higher is better 24 · 18 of 30 measured | 48.4 | 60.6 |
| Business scorescore out of 100, higher is better 26 · 7 of 30 measured | 13.5 | 53.1 |
| SurveyBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Analysis ratingrating, higher is betterThe rating weighs each win by how strong the other analysis was; the win rate counts wins against whichever analyses a model happened to meet, so the two can disagree. 6 · 5 of 21 measured | 1,248 | 1,392 |
| Cost per taskUS dollars, lower is better 4 · 6 of 21 measured | $0.0185 | $0.0213 |
| Analysis scorepoints of 100, higher is better 9 · 10 of 21 measured | 88.4 | 84.3 |
Show all 82 results (67 more)
| Measure | Claude Haiku 5.5 | Muse Ember |
|---|---|---|
| BulletBench measured by Spring Prompt · 2 results | ||
| Invalid moves · Bullet 60s% of moves, lower is better 1 · 1 of 38 measured | 0.0%no reasoning | 0.0% |
| Median move time · Bullet 60smilliseconds, lower is better 25 · 26 of 38 measured | 1.7 sno reasoning | 1.8 sminimal reasoning |
| 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 17 · 1 of 30 measured | 0.6% | 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 19 · 1 of 28 measured | 1.2% | 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 23 · 23 of 30 measured | 95.6% | 95.6% |
| Content quality · sales brief% of checks, higher is better 18 · 4 of 30 measured | 96.3% | 98.5% |
| Decision accuracy% of decisions, higher is better 22 · 20 of 30 measured | 95.6% | 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 28 · 14 of 30 measured | 91.0% | 93.7% |
| Invented values% of filled values, lower is better 8 · 18 of 30 measured | 0.8% | 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 28 · 9 of 30 measured | 11.9% | 3.6% |
| Not findable · sales brief% of products, lower is better 28 · 14 of 30 measured | 10.7% | 3.6% |
| Publish-ready listings% of products, higher is better 20 · 8 of 30 measured | 47.0% | 71.4% |
| Publish-ready listings · sales brief% of products, higher is better 18 · 11 of 30 measured | 20.2% | 54.2% |
| Time per productseconds, lower is better 14 · 5 of 30 measured | 11.0 | 8.10 |
| Unsupported claimsclaims per product, lower is better 25 · 8 of 30 measured | 1.20 | 0.29 |
| Unsupported claims% of products, lower is better 22 · 7 of 30 measured | 32.1% | 7.1% |
| Unsupported claims · sales brief% of products, lower is better 20 · 12 of 30 measured | 70.2% | 33.3% |
| Unsupported claims · sales briefclaims per product, lower is better 20 · 10 of 30 measured | 2.46 | 0.69 |
| Wrong attributes% of products, lower is better 21 · 5 of 30 measured | 19.6% | 13.7% |
| Wrong attributes · sales brief% of products, lower is better 17 · 8 of 30 measured | 18.5% | 14.9% |
| Wrong category or variant% of products, lower is better 1 · 5 of 30 measured | 0.0% | 1.8% |
| Wrong category or variant · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 3 of 30 measured | 0.0% | 0.6% |
| DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 14 results | ||
| Caveat dropped% of tasks, lower is better 14 · 29 of 30 measured | 16.7% | 33.3% |
| Clean layout% of tasks, higher is better 8 · 27 of 30 measured | 66.7% | 0.0% |
| Design quality% of the maximum, higher is better 18 · 21 of 30 measured | 61.1% | 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 20 · 20 of 30 measured | 16.7% | 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. 12 · 16 of 30 measured | 62.4% | 51.9% |
| Layout defects% of tasks, lower is better 8 · 27 of 30 measured | 33.3% | 100.0% |
| Misleading metric used% of tasks, lower is better 26 · 26 of 30 measured | 16.7% | 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 17 · 17 of 30 measured | 33.3% | 33.3% |
| Slides needing work% of tasks, lower is better 3 · 15 of 30 measured | 16.7% | 50.0% |
| Time per deckseconds, lower is better 6 · 4 of 30 measured | 62.1 | 30.2 |
| Unsupported claims% of tasks, lower is better 23 · 15 of 30 measured | 33.3% | 16.7% |
| Unsupported numbers% of tasks, lower is better 24 · 24 of 30 measured | 16.7% | 16.7% |
| ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 6 results | ||
| Consistency scorescore out of 100, higher is better 27 · 4 of 30 measured | 10.6 | 38.6 |
| Contribution profitsimulated US dollars, higher is better 26 · 13 of 30 measured | $32,146 | $621,558 |
| Cost of a runUS dollars, lower is better 6 · 4 of 30 measured | $0.0313 | $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 17 · 8 of 30 measured | 54.8 | 55.0 |
| Return on ad spendprofit per $1 spent, higher is better 26 · 5 of 30 measured | $0.03 | $0.70 |
| SurveyBench measured by Spring Prompt · 17 results | ||
| Head-to-head win rate% of comparisons, higher is betterThe rating weighs each win by how strong the other analysis was; the win rate counts wins against whichever analyses a model happened to meet, so the two can disagree. 8 · 6 of 21 measured | 59.4% | 62.2% |
| Leading or double-barrelled questions% of tasks, lower is better 9 · 9 of 21 measured | 33.3% | 33.3% |
| Mistaken next steps% of tasks, lower is better 9 · 9 of 21 measured | 22.2% | 22.2% |
| Numbers right% of answers, higher is better 1 · 1 of 21 measured | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| Objectives unanswerable% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 21 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Precision ignored% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 11 of 21 measured | 0.0% | 11.1% |
| Research scorepoints of 100, higher is better 8 · 10 of 21 measured | 90.2 | 86.9 |
| Sound research% of tasks, higher is better 10 · 8 of 21 measured | 11.1% | 22.2% |
| Stakeholder's view presumed% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 21 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Survey plan scorepoints of 100, higher is better 5 · 8 of 21 measured | 94.5 | 92.8 |
| Survey structure% of tasks, lower is better 9 · 9 of 21 measured | 22.2% | 22.2% |
| Time per taskseconds, lower is better 11 · 3 of 21 measured | 147 | 73.2 |
| Traps handled% of traps, higher is better 7 · 3 of 21 measured | 94.2% | 98.4% |
| Traps missed% of tasks, lower is better 3 · 3 of 21 measured | 22.2% | 22.2% |
| Unsupported findings% of tasks, lower is better 12 · 5 of 21 measured | 77.8% | 22.2% |
| Wrong numbers% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 11 of 21 measured | 0.0% | 11.1% |
| Wrong recommendation% of tasks, lower is better 5 · 12 of 21 measured | 11.1% | 22.2% |
Compare them with other models
- Anthropic vs MetaEvery model from both labs, best against best
- Claude Haiku 5.5 vs DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashFastest with similar intelligence
- Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Claude Opus 5.5Most intelligent available today
- Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Claude Fable 5.2Highest-scoring overall available today
- Muse Ember vs Claude Fable 5.2Highest-scoring overall available today
- Muse Ember vs Claude Fable 5.1Just above overall
- Muse Ember vs Claude Sonnet 5.5Just below overall
- Muse Ember vs Muse WonderMeta's best other model
Quick answers
Is Claude Haiku 5.5 better than Muse Ember?
Pick Muse Ember if quality matters most: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 65 against 41). Pick Claude Haiku 5.5 if cost matters more: it costs 41% less per product listing on CatalogBench.
Which is cheaper, Claude Haiku 5.5 or Muse Ember?
Claude Haiku 5.5 is cheaper to run: $0.001 against $0.002 per product listing on CatalogBench (41% less).
Which is better for product listings, Claude Haiku 5.5 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 17 for Claude Haiku 5.5.
Which is better for decks from an analysis, Claude Haiku 5.5 or Muse Ember?
Muse Ember ranks 15 of 29 models on sale for turning a finished analysis into a deck you could present as it is, against 16 for Claude Haiku 5.5.
Which is better for user surveys, Claude Haiku 5.5 or Muse Ember?
Muse Ember ranks 5 of 20 models on sale for planning a user survey and reading its results without being misled, against 6 for Claude Haiku 5.5.
Which is better for marketing planning, Claude Haiku 5.5 or Muse Ember?
Muse Ember ranks 8 of 29 models on sale for planning a year of ad spend without overspending, against 27 for Claude Haiku 5.5.
Which has the bigger context window, Claude Haiku 5.5 or Muse Ember?
Muse Ember: 1,048,576 tokens, against 1,000,000 for Claude Haiku 5.5.
Run Claude Haiku 5.5 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.