Compare published benchmark results from matching versions and cohorts, API pricing, and technical specifications. Any documented test setup differences remain visible.
shared result series
182
distinct benchmarks
35
latest retrieval
2026-10-15
Change model selection
Specifications
General specifications
Release date, availability, context window, architecture, and published parameter counts at a glance. Undisclosed details remain marked as unavailable.
Specifications for Claude Fable 5.1 and Muse Wonder Full
The table compares official standard API rates per 1M tokens, including published cache pricing. Batch, fast, priority, regional surcharges, tool calls, and cloud platform pricing are excluded.
API pricing for Claude Fable 5.1 and Muse Wonder Full
Direct developer pricing and provider endpoint tariffs routed through OpenRouter are listed separately. Prices are in USD per 1M tokens. Context-dependent direct tiers plus regional, Flex, Priority, and other OpenRouter tariffs remain individually identifiable.
No provider tariff for Muse Wonder Full is available in the stored OpenRouter snapshot. The official direct price is still shown.
Provider pricing for Claude Fable 5.1 and Muse Wonder Full
Only published results with the same benchmark version, task, metric, and comparison cohort are paired. Different reasoning levels, agents, harnesses, or output limits appear directly in the table.
Capability profile from matched benchmarks
Each axis averages directly matched benchmark families. A value of 100 means the stronger value within this pair, not a universal quality score.
Claude Fable 5.1
Muse Wonder Full
Coding: 90.2 / 100 (3 benchmark families)
Knowledge: 92.4 / 100 (1 benchmark family)
Finance: 99.7 / 100 (1 benchmark family)
Legal: 48.9 / 100 (1 benchmark family)
Agentic tasks: 90.2 / 96.2 (3 benchmark families)
Productivity: 90.1 / 100 (2 benchmark families)
Health: 99.7 / 100 (1 benchmark family)
Overall: 84.4 / 100 (1 benchmark family)
13 matched rows from 13 benchmark families were considered. The radar shows 8 of 8 comparable categories.
Claude Fable 5.1Muse Wonder Full
AutomationBench-AA (strict pass@1)Overall. Higher is better. No documented setup difference
Claude Fable 5.132.1 %
Muse Wonder FullWinner45.4 %
Code MigrationOverall. Higher is better. Test setup not documented as identical
Claude Fable 5.154.607 %
Muse Wonder FullHigher measured value61.033 %
CyberBench v1.1Overall. Higher is better. Test setup not documented as identical
Claude Fable 5.170.416 %
Muse Wonder FullHigher measured value73.631 %
DeepSWEOverall. Higher is better. No documented setup difference
Claude Fable 5.167.4 %
Muse Wonder FullWinner79 %
EMBOverall. Higher is better. Test setup not documented as identical
Claude Fable 5.1Higher measured value76.67 %
Muse Wonder Full71.917 %
Finance Agent (v2)Overall. Higher is better. Test setup not documented as identical
Claude Fable 5.158.877 %
Muse Wonder FullHigher measured value59.061 %
GDP.pdfOverall. Higher is better. No documented setup difference
Claude Fable 5.127.6 points
Muse Wonder FullWinner33.2 points
Harvey LAB-AAOverall. Higher is better. No documented setup difference
Claude Fable 5.16.4 %
Muse Wonder FullWinner13.1 %
Harvey's Legal Agent BenchmarkOverall · Task fully resolved. Higher is better. Test setup not documented as identical
Claude Fable 5.16.667 %
Muse Wonder FullHigher measured value21.667 %
HealthBench ProOverall. Higher is better. No documented setup difference
Claude Fable 5.162.1 points
Muse Wonder FullWinner62.3 points
IOIOverall. Higher is better. Test setup not documented as identical
Claude Fable 5.1Higher measured value90.778 %
Muse Wonder Full79.833 %
JobBenchOverall. Higher is better. No documented setup difference
Claude Fable 5.173.1 points
Muse Wonder FullWinner75.3 points
Key to the marks:better valuebetter, but not conclusivetie
Benchmark scores for Claude Fable 5.1 and Muse Wonder Full
No documented difference in the test setupVersion: Meta Wonder scorecard; version unspecifiedMetric: strict pass@1; every end-state assertion passedScoring: Higher is betterSettings: Reasoning: maxBusiness workflows in a simulated application environment. Every end-state assertion must pass; max reasoning. Do not merge with other AutomationBench-AA metrics.
32.1 %
Comparison table published by Meta. Depending on the benchmark, Meta uses internal runs, provider reports or third-party results and selects the highest available validated score. This is not a uniformly independently measured cohort.
Winner45.4 %
Comparison table published by Meta. Depending on the benchmark, Meta uses internal runs, provider reports or third-party results and selects the highest available validated score. This is not a uniformly independently measured cohort.
No documented difference in the test setupVersion: v1.1Metric: pass@1Scoring: Higher is betterSettings: Reasoning: max113 tasks across 91 repositories and five languages. Max reasoning. Meta attributes these results to Datacurve; the Muse scores could not be found on its public leaderboard at retrieval.
67.4 %
Comparison table published by Meta. Depending on the benchmark, Meta uses internal runs, provider reports or third-party results and selects the highest available validated score. This is not a uniformly independently measured cohort.
Winner79 %
Comparison table published by Meta. Depending on the benchmark, Meta uses internal runs, provider reports or third-party results and selects the highest available validated score. This is not a uniformly independently measured cohort.
No documented difference in the test setupVersion: Meta Wonder scorecard; version unspecifiedMetric: published GDP.pdf scoreScoring: Higher is betterSettings: Reasoning: maxProfessional work grounded in supplied PDFs. Max reasoning. Meta names Surge as the original source.
27.6 points
Comparison table published by Meta. Depending on the benchmark, Meta uses internal runs, provider reports or third-party results and selects the highest available validated score. This is not a uniformly independently measured cohort. The source specifies neither a denominator nor a normalized scale. This is the published raw score, not a percentage.
Winner33.2 points
Comparison table published by Meta. Depending on the benchmark, Meta uses internal runs, provider reports or third-party results and selects the highest available validated score. This is not a uniformly independently measured cohort. The source specifies neither a denominator nor a normalized scale. This is the published raw score, not a percentage.
No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 1.1Metric: all criteria passed with hallucination checksScoring: Higher is betterSettings: Reasoning: maxLegal deliverables must pass every criterion including hallucination checks. Max reasoning. Meta attributes the original evaluation to Artificial Analysis.
6.4 %
Comparison table published by Meta. Depending on the benchmark, Meta uses internal runs, provider reports or third-party results and selects the highest available validated score. This is not a uniformly independently measured cohort.
Winner13.1 %
Comparison table published by Meta. Depending on the benchmark, Meta uses internal runs, provider reports or third-party results and selects the highest available validated score. This is not a uniformly independently measured cohort.
No documented difference in the test setupVersion: Meta Wonder scorecard; version unspecifiedMetric: length-normalized weighted rubric scoreScoring: Higher is betterSettings: Reasoning: max525 health questions without tools; physician rubrics graded by GPT-5.4. Max reasoning. Meta attributes the Claude scores to Anthropic system cards.
62.1 points
Comparison table published by Meta. Depending on the benchmark, Meta uses internal runs, provider reports or third-party results and selects the highest available validated score. This is not a uniformly independently measured cohort. The source specifies neither a denominator nor a normalized scale. This is the published raw score, not a percentage.
Winner62.3 points
Comparison table published by Meta. Depending on the benchmark, Meta uses internal runs, provider reports or third-party results and selects the highest available validated score. This is not a uniformly independently measured cohort. The source specifies neither a denominator nor a normalized scale. This is the published raw score, not a percentage.
No documented difference in the test setupVersion: Meta Wonder scorecard; version unspecifiedMetric: mean task rewardScoring: Higher is betterSettings: Reasoning: max65 professional tasks across 35 occupations. Mean task-specific reward, max reasoning.
73.1 points
Comparison table published by Meta. Depending on the benchmark, Meta uses internal runs, provider reports or third-party results and selects the highest available validated score. This is not a uniformly independently measured cohort. The source specifies neither a denominator nor a normalized scale. This is the published raw score, not a percentage.
Winner75.3 points
Comparison table published by Meta. Depending on the benchmark, Meta uses internal runs, provider reports or third-party results and selects the highest available validated score. This is not a uniformly independently measured cohort. The source specifies neither a denominator nor a normalized scale. This is the published raw score, not a percentage.
No documented difference in the test setupVersion: Meta internal Wonder evaluationMetric: LLM-judge weighted rubric scoreScoring: Higher is betterSettings: Reasoning: maxInternal Meta evaluation with 64K-100K-token conversations, distractors and conflicting or updated turns. Max reasoning.
79 points
Comparison table published by Meta. Depending on the benchmark, Meta uses internal runs, provider reports or third-party results and selects the highest available validated score. This is not a uniformly independently measured cohort. The source specifies neither a denominator nor a normalized scale. This is the published raw score, not a percentage.
Winner85.5 points
Comparison table published by Meta. Depending on the benchmark, Meta uses internal runs, provider reports or third-party results and selects the highest available validated score. This is not a uniformly independently measured cohort. The source specifies neither a denominator nor a normalized scale. This is the published raw score, not a percentage.
No documented difference in the test setupVersion: V2.1Metric: strict binary task completionScoring: Higher is betterSettings: Reasoning: max108 Ubuntu desktop workflows. Full task completion without partial credit, max reasoning. No binary Opus 5.5 score is published.
Winner43.1 %
Comparison table published by Meta. Depending on the benchmark, Meta uses internal runs, provider reports or third-party results and selects the highest available validated score. This is not a uniformly independently measured cohort.
39.4 %
Comparison table published by Meta. Depending on the benchmark, Meta uses internal runs, provider reports or third-party results and selects the highest available validated score. This is not a uniformly independently measured cohort.
No documented difference in the test setupVersion: V2.1Metric: mean per-task partial rewardScoring: Higher is betterSettings: Reasoning: max108 Ubuntu desktop workflows. Partial reward, max reasoning. Meta attributes the Opus 5.5 score to Anthropic.
Winner80.7 %
Comparison table published by Meta. Depending on the benchmark, Meta uses internal runs, provider reports or third-party results and selects the highest available validated score. This is not a uniformly independently measured cohort.
78.4 %
Comparison table published by Meta. Depending on the benchmark, Meta uses internal runs, provider reports or third-party results and selects the highest available validated score. This is not a uniformly independently measured cohort.
Personal Superintelligence IndexOverallTest details
No documented difference in the test setupVersion: Meta Wonder launch scorecardMetric: Meta internal composite scoreScoring: Higher is betterSettings: Reasoning: maxMeta internal composite of seven personal and professional work evaluations. Max reasoning.
49.9 points
Comparison table published by Meta. Depending on the benchmark, Meta uses internal runs, provider reports or third-party results and selects the highest available validated score. This is not a uniformly independently measured cohort. The source specifies neither a denominator nor a normalized scale. This is the published raw score, not a percentage.
Winner59.1 points
Comparison table published by Meta. Depending on the benchmark, Meta uses internal runs, provider reports or third-party results and selects the highest available validated score. This is not a uniformly independently measured cohort. The source specifies neither a denominator nor a normalized scale. This is the published raw score, not a percentage.
No documented difference in the test setupVersion: Meta Wonder scorecard; version unspecifiedMetric: rollouts passing at least 95% of testsScoring: Higher is betterSettings: Reasoning: max, Harness: mini-swe-agentReconstruct programs from a specification. Common mini-swe-agent, clean environment without internet after setup. Share of rollouts passing at least 95% of tests, max reasoning.
55.5 %
Comparison table published by Meta. Depending on the benchmark, Meta uses internal runs, provider reports or third-party results and selects the highest available validated score. This is not a uniformly independently measured cohort.
Winner59 %
Comparison table published by Meta. Depending on the benchmark, Meta uses internal runs, provider reports or third-party results and selects the highest available validated score. This is not a uniformly independently measured cohort.
No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 4.0-AAMetric: task accuracyScoring: Higher is betterSettings: Reasoning: maxTerminal tasks in isolated environments with executable verifiers. Max reasoning. Meta names Artificial Analysis as the source; each agent remains part of the result.
52 %
Comparison table published by Meta. Depending on the benchmark, Meta uses internal runs, provider reports or third-party results and selects the highest available validated score. This is not a uniformly independently measured cohort.
Winner57.1 %
Comparison table published by Meta. Depending on the benchmark, Meta uses internal runs, provider reports or third-party results and selects the highest available validated score. This is not a uniformly independently measured cohort.
No documented difference in the test setupVersion: V2Metric: private test accuracyScoring: Higher is betterSettings: Reasoning: maxFinancial research using filings and market data. Private test set, max reasoning. Vals results republished by Meta.
58.9 %
Comparison table published by Meta. Depending on the benchmark, Meta uses internal runs, provider reports or third-party results and selects the highest available validated score. This is not a uniformly independently measured cohort.
Winner59.1 %
Comparison table published by Meta. Depending on the benchmark, Meta uses internal runs, provider reports or third-party results and selects the highest available validated score. This is not a uniformly independently measured cohort.
Your workload, budget, and required context length matter most. A coding benchmark says little about visual understanding or agent performance.
The standard price table uses direct developer rates. The provider comparison labels OpenRouter endpoints, regions, and special tariffs separately.
Every result links to its measurement source and retrieval date. Labels distinguish vendor reports, official benchmark leaderboards, and independent evaluations. Disputed or archived results are excluded.
More matchups
Related LLM comparisons
Compare Claude Fable 5.1 and Muse Wonder Full with other leading models using the same data and benchmark logic.
