Compare / Claude Opus 5.5 vs Muse Wonder
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Muse Wonder
Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 79 results on 5 sources that measured both models.
AnthropicClaude Opus 5.5
MetaMuse Wonder
Claude Opus 5.5 wins 2923 too close to callMuse Wonder wins 27
Of the 79 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 Opus 5.5 or Muse Wonder? The short answer
Pick Claude Opus 5.5: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 85 against 70) at about the same price.
- Spring Prompt overall: Claude Opus 5.5 85, Muse Wonder 70 (out of 100; how the score works).
- They cost about the same to run: $0.040 and $0.036 per product listing on CatalogBench.
- Muse Wonder is newer: released 12 Oct 2026, against 22 Sep 2026 for Claude Opus 5.5.
- On our own benchmarks, on the results both models have: Claude Opus 5.5 does better for marketing planning; Muse Wonder for product listings.
Head to head
85
Spring Prompt overall
70
$8.00
Price per million tokens, blendedlower is better
$8.00
1,000,000
Context window, tokens
1,048,576
Every fact side by side
| Claude Opus 5.5 | Muse Wonder | |
|---|---|---|
| Price per million tokens | $4.00 in · $20.00 out | $4.00 in · $20.00 out |
| Blended (3 in : 1 out) | $8.00 | $8.00 |
| Cheapest host, blended | $8.00 (Amazon Bedrock) | – |
| Cost per product listing (CatalogBench) | $0.040 | $0.036 |
| Cached input, per million | $0.20 cached input | $0.20 cached input |
| Intelligence Index | 57.6 | – |
| Spring Prompt overall | 85 | 70 |
| Output speed, tokens a second | 97 | – |
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens |
| Released | 22 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.
Product listingsTurning a sparse product feed and photos into listings that can go live
7 of 21
4 of 21
Decks from an analysisTurning a finished analysis into a deck you could present as it is
4 of 20
8 of 20
User surveysPlanning a user survey and reading its results without being misled
1 of 9
2 of 9
Marketing planningPlanning a year of ad spend without overspending
5 of 20
10 of 20
Agents and tool useMulti-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls
2 of 164
not measured
Professional workReal tasks from banking, consulting and law, business documents and freelance projects
3 of 51
not measured
Reasoning and knowledgeHard questions across science, maths and general knowledge
1 of 198
not measured
WritingWhat people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality
4 of 188
not measured
Sticking to the factsSummarising without inventing things, and factual answers
2 of 152
not measured
Speed under pressureGood decisions against a real clock (fast chess)
25 of 25
12 of 24
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 Opus 5.5 vs Muse Wonder Full: Eight Crafts, and Opus Still Wins Most 13 Oct 2026
- Muse Wonder review: good analysis, work that still needs checking 13 Oct 2026
- We Told 11 AI Models What Happened in 2026. Most of Them Thought We Were Making It Up. 12 Oct 2026
- We Tested the Anatomy Claude Code Skill on Everyday Objects and Seven AI Models 12 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 Opus 5.5 | Muse Wonder |
|---|---|---|
| BulletBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per game · Blitz 3+2US dollars, lower is better 10 · 12 of 14 measured | $0.18 | $0.27 |
| Games lost on time · Blitz 3+2% of games, lower is better 13 · 14 of 14 measured | 62.5% | 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 19 · 17 of 21 measured | $0.0400 | $0.0361 |
| Reliably publish-ready% of products, higher is better 6 · 3 of 21 measured | 55.4% | 66.1% |
| Reliably publish-ready · sales brief% of products, higher is better 8 · 4 of 21 measured | 21.4% | 51.8% |
| DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per deckUS dollars, lower is better 17 · 14 of 20 measured | $0.26 | $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. 4 · 8 of 20 measured | 1,380 | 1,273 |
| Accurate decks% of tasks, higher is better 4 · 1 of 20 measured | 83.3% | 100.0% |
| ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Overall scorescore out of 100, higher is better 5 · 10 of 20 measured | 51.7 | 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 5 · 10 of 20 measured | 52.3 | 34.5 |
| 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. 1 · 2 of 9 measured | 1,499 | 1,460 |
| Cost per taskUS dollars, lower is better 9 · 8 of 9 measured | $0.46 | $0.35 |
| Analysis scorepoints of 100, higher is better 3 · 2 of 9 measured | 95.3 | 96.2 |
Show all 79 results (64 more)
| Measure | Claude Opus 5.5 | Muse Wonder |
|---|---|---|
| BulletBench measured by Spring Prompt · 2 results | ||
| Ladder Elo · Blitz 3+2ladder Elo, higher is better 6 · 13 of 14 measured | 557 | 358 |
| Median move time · Blitz 3+2milliseconds, lower is better 13 · 12 of 14 measured | 7.5 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 10 · 1 of 21 measured | 0.6% | 0.0% |
| Claims to check% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 21 measured | 0.0% | 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 4 · 3 of 21 measured | 97.9% | 98.3% |
| Content quality · sales brief% of checks, higher is better 7 · 3 of 21 measured | 97.8% | 98.5% |
| Decision accuracy% of decisions, higher is better 5 · 3 of 21 measured | 97.7% | 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 16 · 1 of 21 measured | 92.2% | 96.1% |
| Invented values% of filled values, lower is better 4 · 11 of 21 measured | 0.5% | 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 3 · 4 of 21 measured | 3.0% | 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 5 · 3 of 21 measured | 70.8% | 75.0% |
| Publish-ready listings · sales brief% of products, higher is better 8 · 5 of 21 measured | 34.5% | 67.3% |
| Unsupported claimsclaims per product, lower is better 7 · 4 of 21 measured | 0.45 | 0.21 |
| Unsupported claims% of products, lower is better 10 · 4 of 21 measured | 17.3% | 7.1% |
| Unsupported claims · sales brief% of products, lower is better 11 · 5 of 21 measured | 60.1% | 17.9% |
| Unsupported claims · sales briefclaims per product, lower is better 10 · 5 of 21 measured | 1.66 | 0.36 |
| Wrong attributes% of products, lower is better 6 · 2 of 21 measured | 15.5% | 13.1% |
| Wrong attributes · sales brief% of products, lower is better 7 · 4 of 21 measured | 15.5% | 14.3% |
| Wrong category or variant% of products, lower is better 4 · 10 of 21 measured | 1.8% | 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 11 · 1 of 20 measured | 16.7% | 0.0% |
| Clean layout% of tasks, higher is better 3 · 18 of 20 measured | 83.3% | 16.7% |
| Design quality% of the maximum, higher is better 7 · 9 of 20 measured | 72.0% | 67.1% |
| Draft figure quoted% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 20 measured | 0.0% | 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. 3 · 10 of 20 measured | 81.8% | 63.2% |
| Layout defects% of tasks, lower is better 3 · 18 of 20 measured | 16.7% | 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 15 · 15 of 20 measured | 66.7% | 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 6 · 12 of 20 measured | 33.8 | 25.9 |
| Contribution profitsimulated US dollars, higher is better 2 · 11 of 20 measured | $911,566 | $489,176 |
| Cost of a runUS dollars, lower is better 18 · 15 of 20 measured | $1.06 | $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 15 · 4 of 20 measured | 54.7 | 55.0 |
| Return on ad spendprofit per $1 spent, higher is better 2 · 11 of 20 measured | $0.69 | $0.41 |
| SurveyBench measured by Spring Prompt · 16 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. 1 · 3 of 9 measured | 83.9% | 67.9% |
| Leading or double-barrelled questions% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 5 of 9 measured | 0.0% | 44.4% |
| Mistaken next steps% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 9 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Numbers right% of answers, higher is better 1 · 1 of 9 measured | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| Objectives unanswerable% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 5 of 9 measured | 0.0% | 11.1% |
| Precision ignored% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 4 of 9 measured | 0.0% | 22.2% |
| Research scorepoints of 100, higher is better 2 · 3 of 9 measured | 96.1 | 93.6 |
| Sound research% of tasks, higher is better 2 · 3 of 9 measured | 55.6% | 33.3% |
| Stakeholder's view presumed% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 4 of 9 measured | 0.0% | 11.1% |
| Survey plan scorepoints of 100, higher is better 1 · 5 of 9 measured | 97.8 | 87.8 |
| Survey structure% of tasks, lower is better 2 · 8 of 9 measured | 11.1% | 33.3% |
| Traps handled% of traps, higher is better 2 · 1 of 9 measured | 95.7% | 100.0% |
| Traps missed% of tasks, lower is better 3 · 1 of 9 measured | 33.3% | 0.0% |
| Unsupported findings% of tasks, lower is better 3 · 2 of 9 measured | 22.2% | 11.1% |
| Wrong numbers% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 9 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Wrong recommendation% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 9 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
Compare them with other models
- Anthropic vs MetaEvery model from both labs, best against best
- Claude Opus 5.5 vs GPT-6.1 SolJust below overall
- Claude Opus 5.5 vs Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic's best other model
- 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 Opus 5.5 better than Muse Wonder?
Pick Claude Opus 5.5: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 85 against 70) at about the same price.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 5.5 or Muse Wonder?
They cost about the same to run: $0.040 and $0.036 per product listing on CatalogBench.
Which is better for product listings, Claude Opus 5.5 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 7 for Claude Opus 5.5.
Which is better for decks from an analysis, Claude Opus 5.5 or Muse Wonder?
Claude Opus 5.5 ranks 4 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 user surveys, Claude Opus 5.5 or Muse Wonder?
Claude Opus 5.5 ranks 1 of 9 models on sale for planning a user survey and reading its results without being misled, against 2 for Muse Wonder.
Which is better for marketing planning, Claude Opus 5.5 or Muse Wonder?
Claude Opus 5.5 ranks 5 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 Opus 5.5 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 Opus 5.5.
Which has the bigger context window, Claude Opus 5.5 or Muse Wonder?
Muse Wonder: 1,048,576 tokens, against 1,000,000 for Claude Opus 5.5.
Run Claude Opus 5.5 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.