Skip to main content

AnthropicMetaLLM matchup

Claude Fable 5.2vs.Muse Wonder Full

Which one is better?

Claude Fable 5.2 performs better than Muse Wonder Full.

Fable 5.2 ahead
IntelligenceOverall index, 100 points = average
130.9

Claude Fable 5.2

Rank 1

118.1

Muse Wonder Full

Rank 8

Price$ per 1M tokens
$16

Claude Fable 5.2

n/a

Muse Wonder Full

Choose Claude Fable 5.2 for

KnowledgeGeneralMathematicsCodingAgentsReasoning (not certain)Finance (not certain)

Choose Muse Wonder Full for

No clear advantage

Where is the difference?

Strengths at a glance

Fable 5.2Muse Wonder Full

The median of all ranked models is below 105 in every area, so it sits in the centre of the net.

125145165105CodingFable 5.2ReasoningslightlyFable 5.2MathematicsFable 5.2KnowledgeFable 5.2AgentsFable 5.2GeneralFable 5.2FinanceslightlyFable 5.2Legallevel
CodingFable 5.2 ahead
Fable 5.2131.6Rank 1
Muse Wonder Full116.1Rank 11
Median of ranked models87.4

95 % range: Fable 5.2 122.0 to 141.1, Muse Wonder Full 110.4 to 121.8.

AreaFable 5.2Muse Wonder Full

The same values and verdicts as the bars below. In the close-up the net starts at 105 points, just below the weaker model's lowest value; the reference group average is 100. Not in the net because a model has no own value there or the data are too thin: Multimodal, Health.

Fable 5.2 is ahead in 5 of 9 areas, Muse Wonder Full in none.

Fable 5.2 ahead: 5Fable 5.2 slightly ahead: 2level: 1too little data: 1

Areas in the overall index
KnowledgeFable 5.2 +26145.5 to 119.4
GeneralFable 5.2 +19132.8 to 113.7
MathematicsFable 5.2 +18135.2 to 117.0
CodingFable 5.2 +15131.6 to 116.1
AgentsFable 5.2 +6124.2 to 118.6
Reasoningleaning Fable 5.2not certain · 2 tests each
Specialist fields
Financeleaning Fable 5.2not certain · 3 and 5 tests
Legallevel120.9 to 122.7
Healthonly Muse Wonder Full has a score

Bar length shows the gap in index points (full width 15 points, one standard deviation of the reference group). Solid means clearly ahead, hatched not certain yet, a thin grey bar level.

Show 2 more areas that do not count toward the overall index
Cybersecurityonly Muse Wonder Full has a score
Productivityonly Muse Wonder Full has a score

Bar length shows the gap in index points (full width 15 points, one standard deviation of the reference group). Solid means clearly ahead, hatched not certain yet, a thin grey bar level.

Claude Fable 5.2 vs. Muse Wonder Full at the same effort

Both models measured at the same reasoning efforts. This shows whether a lead comes from the model or only from more compute.

maxFable 5.2 ahead
13.4 points gap across 11 shared test series
Overall index (max vs. max)Fable 5.2 ahead
Fable 5.2 130.9 vs. Muse Wonder Full 118.1

The gap compares only the Artificial Analysis test series in which both models are measured at that effort. Tied below 3 points, ahead only beyond two standard errors.

Which model for which task?

Everyday tasks, translated from the area values above. Each row names the values it rests on.

Writing and debugging codeFable 5.2Coding 131.6 to 116.1
Maths and data analysisFable 5.2Mathematics 135.2 to 117.0, Reasoning 124.9 to 118.4
Facts and researchFable 5.2Knowledge 145.5 to 119.4
Agents and workflowsFable 5.2Agents 124.2 to 118.6
Security analysisopenCybersecurity without a score for Fable 5.2
Finance, legal and medical textsleaning Fable 5.2Finance 123.5 to 118.1, Legal 120.9 to 122.7, Health without a score for Fable 5.2

Claude Fable 5.2 vs. Muse Wonder Full in our own test

The same prompt for both models. We show the latest attempt without fixes; it does not count toward the overall index.

Pelican on a bicycle

Prompt

Generate an SVG of a pelican riding a bicycle

Task origin: Simon Willison

Claude Fable 5.2

Not tested yet

Muse Wonder Full

Not tested yet

Claude Fable 5.2 and Muse Wonder Full in the overall index

Every model with a place in the overall index, both models of this matchup highlighted. You can add or hide other models.

Overall index (Gradually Meta-Score v5)

20 of 94 models

4 models in this view are measured at a lower reasoning effort than max in the overall index. Dashed column: lower reasoning effort than the top.

Claude Fable 5.2max130.9
Gemini 4 Carbonhigh127.0
Claude Opus 5.5max125.6
Claude Fable 5.1max124.1
Claude Sonnet 5.5max121.8
Gemini 4 Argonhigh121.4
GPT-6 Astramax120.2
Muse Wonder Fullmax118.1
GPT-6.1 Solmax118.0
Claude Opus 5max117.4
Muse Wondermax113.3
Claude Fable 5max112.8
Kimi K3.1 Promax112.6
Muse Ember 1.0max110.4
GPT-6 Solmax109.1
GPT-5.6 Solmax109.1
Gemini 3.7 Flashhigh107.9
Muse Spark 1.3max107.3
Gemini 3.8 Flashhigh106.8
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017max106.7

All data side by side

The better value is bold. For the overall index only when the gap is clear.

MetricClaude Fable 5.2Muse Wonder Full
Intelligence
Overall indexpoints, 100 = reference group average, higher is better130.9118.1
RankRank 1 of 94Rank 8 of 94
Price per 1M tokens
Inputwhat you send$8n/a
Outputwhat the model writes$40n/a
Speed
Tokens per secondn/an/a
Technical
Context windowhow much text the model reads at once1 M tokens≈ 1,500 A4 pages1 M tokens≈ 1,500 A4 pages
Knowledge cutoffJune 2026n/a
ReleasedNov 9, 2026Oct 12, 2026
AvailabilityActiveSubscription only
Open weightsnono
  • Claude Fable 5.2, Batch pricing: $4 input and $20 output per million tokens, separate from standard API pricing. Source
  • Claude Fable 5.2, Fast pricing: $16 input and $80 output per million tokens. Fast is a separate serving mode. Source

Prices without caching or batch discounts · Page count as a rule of thumb from Artificial Analysis

Shared benchmarks

Single results from the same benchmark version, task and metric. A value is bold only with the same test setup and a clear gap.

No directly comparable result yet

No published benchmark for Claude Fable 5.2 and Muse Wonder Full currently matches in version, task and metric. We therefore show no estimated or blended values.

More comparisons

Compare Claude Fable 5.2 and Muse Wonder Full with the models people compare them with most often.

Compare another matchup