Compare / Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Muse Ember
Claude Sonnet 5.5 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 Sonnet 5.5 or Muse Ember? The short answer
They score about the same, so pick Muse Ember: it costs 8.4 times less per product listing on CatalogBench.
- Spring Prompt overall: Claude Sonnet 5.5 61, Muse Ember 65 (out of 100; how the score works).
- Muse Ember is cheaper to run: $0.002 against $0.017 per product listing on CatalogBench (8.4 times less).
- Muse Ember is newer: released 9 Nov 2026, against 28 Sep 2026 for Claude Sonnet 5.5.
- On our own benchmarks, on the results both models have: Claude Sonnet 5.5 does better for marketing planning; Muse Ember for product listings.
Head to head
Every fact side by side
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 | Muse Ember | |
|---|---|---|
| Price per million tokens | $2.00 in · $10.00 out | $0.10 in · $0.50 out |
| Blended (3 in : 1 out) | $4.00 | $0.20 |
| Cheapest host, blended | $4.00 (Amazon Bedrock) | – |
| Cost per product listing (CatalogBench) | $0.017 | $0.002 |
| Cached input, per million | $0.20 cached input | $0.004 cached input |
| Intelligence Index | 56.0 | – |
| Spring Prompt overall | 61 | 65 |
| Output speed, tokens a second | 137 | – |
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens |
| Released | 28 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
- We Switched a Support-Reply Prompt from Claude Sonnet 4.5 to Sonnet 5.5: What Changed 8 Nov 2026
- GPT-6.1 Terra review: close to the top of our business tests at half the price of Sol 5 Nov 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
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 Sonnet 5.5 | Muse Ember |
|---|---|---|
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per productUS dollars, lower is better 20 · 6 of 30 measured | $0.0172 | $0.0020 |
| Reliably publish-ready% of products, higher is better 18 · 11 of 29 measured | 32.1% | 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 20 · 5 of 30 measured | $0.15 | $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. 6 · 15 of 30 measured | 1,348 | 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 7 · 8 of 30 measured | 52.0 | 51.8 |
| Audience scorescore out of 100, higher is better 16 · 18 of 30 measured | 61.8 | 60.6 |
| Business scorescore out of 100, higher is better 5 · 7 of 30 measured | 57.2 | 53.1 |
Show all 57 results (48 more)
| Measure | Claude Sonnet 5.5 | Muse Ember |
|---|---|---|
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 28 results | ||
| Channel compliance% of products, higher is better 22 · 1 of 30 measured | 99.4% | 100.0% |
| Channel rules broken% of products, lower is better 24 · 1 of 30 measured | 1.2% | 0.0% |
| Channel rules broken · sales brief% of products, lower is better 16 · 1 of 30 measured | 0.6% | 0.0% |
| Claims to check% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 28 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Claims to check · sales brief% of products, lower is better 18 · 1 of 28 measured | 0.6% | 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 19 · 23 of 30 measured | 96.5% | 95.6% |
| Content quality · sales brief% of checks, higher is better 14 · 4 of 30 measured | 97.3% | 98.5% |
| Decision accuracy% of decisions, higher is better 21 · 20 of 30 measured | 95.7% | 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 27 · 14 of 30 measured | 91.5% | 93.7% |
| Invented values% of filled values, lower is better 7 · 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 4 · 9 of 30 measured | 1.2% | 3.6% |
| Not findable · sales brief% of products, lower is better 4 · 14 of 30 measured | 0.6% | 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 17 · 11 of 30 measured | 27.4% | 54.2% |
| Time per productseconds, lower is better 9 · 5 of 30 measured | 9.90 | 8.10 |
| Unsupported claims% of products, lower is better 25 · 7 of 30 measured | 39.3% | 7.1% |
| Unsupported claimsclaims per product, lower is better 22 · 8 of 30 measured | 1.08 | 0.29 |
| Unsupported claims · sales brief% of products, lower is better 16 · 12 of 30 measured | 59.5% | 33.3% |
| Unsupported claims · sales briefclaims per product, lower is better 16 · 10 of 30 measured | 1.71 | 0.69 |
| Wrong attributes% of products, lower is better 20 · 5 of 30 measured | 19.1% | 13.7% |
| Wrong attributes · sales brief% of products, lower is better 23 · 8 of 30 measured | 20.8% | 14.9% |
| Wrong category or variant% of products, lower is better 21 · 5 of 30 measured | 3.0% | 1.8% |
| Wrong category or variant · sales brief% of products, lower is better 20 · 3 of 30 measured | 3.0% | 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 1 · 27 of 30 measured | 100.0% | 0.0% |
| Design quality% of the maximum, higher is better 6 · 21 of 30 measured | 78.5% | 56.7% |
| Draft figure quoted% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 12 of 30 measured | 0.0% | 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. 4 · 16 of 30 measured | 84.0% | 51.9% |
| Layout defects% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 27 of 30 measured | 0.0% | 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 3 · 14 of 30 measured | 50.0% | 0.0% |
| Recommendation late or wrong% of tasks, lower is better 12 · 17 of 30 measured | 16.7% | 33.3% |
| Slides needing work% of tasks, lower is better 9 · 15 of 30 measured | 33.3% | 50.0% |
| Time per deckseconds, lower is better 11 · 4 of 30 measured | 83.4 | 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 15 · 4 of 30 measured | 28.5 | 38.6 |
| Contribution profitsimulated US dollars, higher is better 17 · 13 of 30 measured | $571,203 | $621,558 |
| Cost of a runUS dollars, lower is better 20 · 4 of 30 measured | $0.42 | $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 3 · 8 of 30 measured | 55.1 | 55.0 |
| Return on ad spendprofit per $1 spent, higher is better 4 · 5 of 30 measured | $0.70 | $0.70 |
Compare them with other models
- Anthropic vs MetaEvery model from both labs, best against best
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Claude Opus 5.5Most intelligent at $3–10 per million tokens
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Muse WonderFastest with similar intelligence
- Claude Sonnet 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 Muse WonderMeta's best other model
Quick answers
Is Claude Sonnet 5.5 better than Muse Ember?
They score about the same, so pick Muse Ember: it costs 8.4 times less per product listing on CatalogBench.
Which is cheaper, Claude Sonnet 5.5 or Muse Ember?
Muse Ember is cheaper to run: $0.002 against $0.017 per product listing on CatalogBench (8.4 times less).
Which is better for product listings, Claude Sonnet 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 16 for Claude Sonnet 5.5.
Which is better for decks from an analysis, Claude Sonnet 5.5 or Muse Ember?
Claude Sonnet 5.5 ranks 6 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 Sonnet 5.5 or Muse Ember?
Claude Sonnet 5.5 ranks 7 of 29 models on sale for planning a year of ad spend without overspending, against 8 for Muse Ember.
Which is better for speed under pressure, Claude Sonnet 5.5 or Muse Ember?
Muse Ember ranks 19 of 32 models on sale for good decisions against a real clock (fast chess), against 29 for Claude Sonnet 5.5.
Which has the bigger context window, Claude Sonnet 5.5 or Muse Ember?
Muse Ember: 1,048,576 tokens, against 1,000,000 for Claude Sonnet 5.5.
Run Claude Sonnet 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.