Compare / Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Muse Wonder
Claude Sonnet 5.5 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 Sonnet 5.5 or Muse Wonder? The short answer
Pick Muse Wonder if quality matters most: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 70 against 63). Pick Claude Sonnet 5.5 if cost matters more: it costs 2.1 times less per product listing on CatalogBench.
- Spring Prompt overall: Claude Sonnet 5.5 63, Muse Wonder 70 (out of 100; how the score works).
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 is cheaper to run: $0.017 against $0.036 per product listing on CatalogBench (2.1 times less).
- Muse Wonder is newer: released 12 Oct 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 Wonder for product listings.
Head to head
Every fact side by side
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 | Muse Wonder | |
|---|---|---|
| Price per million tokens | $2.00 in · $10.00 out | $4.00 in · $20.00 out |
| Blended (3 in : 1 out) | $4.00 | $8.00 |
| Cheapest host, blended | $4.00 (Amazon Bedrock) | – |
| Cost per product listing (CatalogBench) | $0.017 | $0.036 |
| Cached input, per million | $0.20 cached input | $0.20 cached input |
| Intelligence Index | 56.0 | – |
| Spring Prompt overall | 63 | 70 |
| Output speed, tokens a second | 134 | – |
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens |
| Released | 28 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 Sonnet 5.5 | Muse Wonder |
|---|---|---|
| BulletBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per game · Blitz 3+2US dollars, lower is better 9 · 12 of 14 measured | $0.12 | $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 13 · 17 of 21 measured | $0.0172 | $0.0361 |
| Reliably publish-ready% of products, higher is better 13 · 3 of 21 measured | 32.1% | 66.1% |
| Reliably publish-ready · sales brief% of products, higher is better 10 · 4 of 21 measured | 10.7% | 51.8% |
| DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per deckUS dollars, lower is better 12 · 14 of 20 measured | $0.15 | $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. 5 · 8 of 20 measured | 1,362 | 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 4 · 10 of 20 measured | 52.0 | 38.9 |
| Audience scorescore out of 100, higher is better 9 · 12 of 20 measured | 61.8 | 54.7 |
| Business scorescore out of 100, higher is better 2 · 10 of 20 measured | 57.2 | 34.5 |
Show all 60 results (48 more)
| Measure | Claude Sonnet 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 14 · 12 of 14 measured | 8.1 s | 7.1 s |
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 27 results | ||
| Channel compliance% of products, higher is better 14 · 14 of 21 measured | 99.4% | 99.4% |
| Channel rules broken% of products, lower is better 17 · 11 of 21 measured | 1.2% | 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 12 · 1 of 21 measured | 0.6% | 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 14 · 3 of 21 measured | 96.5% | 98.3% |
| Content quality · sales brief% of checks, higher is better 10 · 3 of 21 measured | 97.3% | 98.5% |
| Decision accuracy% of decisions, higher is better 14 · 3 of 21 measured | 95.7% | 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 18 · 1 of 21 measured | 91.5% | 96.1% |
| Invented values% of filled values, lower is better 7 · 11 of 21 measured | 0.8% | 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 1 · 4 of 21 measured | 1.2% | 3.6% |
| Not findable · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 8 of 21 measured | 0.6% | 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 11 · 5 of 21 measured | 27.4% | 67.3% |
| Unsupported claimsclaims per product, lower is better 15 · 4 of 21 measured | 1.08 | 0.21 |
| Unsupported claims% of products, lower is better 17 · 4 of 21 measured | 39.3% | 7.1% |
| Unsupported claims · sales briefclaims per product, lower is better 11 · 5 of 21 measured | 1.71 | 0.36 |
| Unsupported claims · sales brief% of products, lower is better 10 · 5 of 21 measured | 59.5% | 17.9% |
| Wrong attributes% of products, lower is better 13 · 2 of 21 measured | 19.1% | 13.1% |
| Wrong attributes · sales brief% of products, lower is better 17 · 4 of 21 measured | 20.8% | 14.3% |
| Wrong category or variant% of products, lower is better 13 · 10 of 21 measured | 3.0% | 2.4% |
| Wrong category or variant · sales brief% of products, lower is better 14 · 10 of 21 measured | 3.0% | 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 1 · 18 of 20 measured | 100.0% | 16.7% |
| Design quality% of the maximum, higher is better 4 · 9 of 20 measured | 78.5% | 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. 4 · 10 of 20 measured | 79.6% | 63.2% |
| Layout defects% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 18 of 20 measured | 0.0% | 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 2 · 10 of 20 measured | 50.0% | 16.7% |
| Recommendation late or wrong% of tasks, lower is better 8 · 1 of 20 measured | 16.7% | 0.0% |
| Slides needing work% of tasks, lower is better 7 · 15 of 20 measured | 33.3% | 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 9 · 12 of 20 measured | 28.5 | 25.9 |
| Contribution profitsimulated US dollars, higher is better 8 · 11 of 20 measured | $571,203 | $489,176 |
| Cost of a runUS dollars, lower is better 12 · 15 of 20 measured | $0.42 | $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 2 · 4 of 20 measured | 55.1 | 55.0 |
| Return on ad spendprofit per $1 spent, higher is better 1 · 11 of 20 measured | $0.70 | $0.41 |
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 Spark 1.3Just above overall
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Gemini 3.8 FlashJust 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 Sonnet 5.5 better than Muse Wonder?
Pick Muse Wonder if quality matters most: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 70 against 63). Pick Claude Sonnet 5.5 if cost matters more: it costs 2.1 times less per product listing on CatalogBench.
Which is cheaper, Claude Sonnet 5.5 or Muse Wonder?
Claude Sonnet 5.5 is cheaper to run: $0.017 against $0.036 per product listing on CatalogBench (2.1 times less).
Which is better for product listings, Claude Sonnet 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 11 for Claude Sonnet 5.5.
Which is better for decks from an analysis, Claude Sonnet 5.5 or Muse Wonder?
Claude Sonnet 5.5 ranks 5 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 Sonnet 5.5 or Muse Wonder?
Claude Sonnet 5.5 ranks 4 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 Sonnet 5.5 or Muse Wonder?
Muse Wonder ranks 12 of 24 models on sale for good decisions against a real clock (fast chess), against 21 for Claude Sonnet 5.5.
Which has the bigger context window, Claude Sonnet 5.5 or Muse Wonder?
Muse Wonder: 1,048,576 tokens, against 1,000,000 for Claude Sonnet 5.5.
Run Claude Sonnet 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.