BenchLeader
Menu
Best LLMsChoose a modelLeaderboardsModelsBenchmarksProvidersReleases16

Claude Opus 5.5 vs Muse Wonder Full

Full profiles: Claude Opus 5.5 (Anthropic) and Muse Wonder Full (Meta): every benchmark, price and rank.

Updated · Data from 10 sources

As of 21 Oct 2026, Claude Opus 5.5 (max) and Muse Wonder Full (max) are neck and neck on quality (72.7 vs 70.7, inside the ±10.4 margin of error) and close on price, so pick on the category that matters to you. Pick Claude Opus 5.5 for coding (82 vs 72); pick Muse Wonder Full for reasoning (95 vs 76).

Claude Opus 5.5 benchmarks max Anthropic Muse Wonder Full benchmarks max MetaOpen in the comparison tool

Which to pick for…

The pick's numbers come first. Category scores on the BenchLeader scale (50 is the average model, 15 points one standard deviation). High confidence means a lead of half a standard deviation or more; under one point is called either.

Use casePickWhyConfidence
CodingClaude Opus 5.582 vs 72 category score; Arena WebDev 1807 vs 1726High
ReasoningMuse Wonder Full95 vs 76 category score; CritPt 32.9% vs 31.7%High
KnowledgeClaude Opus 5.579 vs 71 category score; AA-Omniscience 46.4 vs 30.1Medium
Long documentsEither68 vs 67 category score; AA-LCR 84.7% vs 83.7%Either
High volume on a budgetNeither flagshipA smaller model is usually the better fit: Cheapest good LLMs, Fastest LLMs–

Key differences

  • Claude Opus 5.5 (max) and Muse Wonder Full (max) are neck and neck on quality (72.7 vs 70.7, within the ±10.4 margin).
  • Claude Opus 5.5 (max) is stronger in agents & tools, coding, composite, knowledge, long context, maths, multimodal.
  • Muse Wonder Full (max) is stronger in reasoning.

At a glance

SpecClaude Opus 5.5Muse Wonder Full
DeveloperAnthropicMeta
Released22 Sept 202612 Oct 2026
Context window (tokens)1,000,0001,000,000
Max output (tokens)128,000 (up to 300K on the Message Batches API (beta))–
Input typestext, image–
Reasoning effort settingslow, medium, high, xhigh, max–
Compared atClaude Opus 5.5 (max)Muse Wonder Full (max)
Open weightsNoNo
Price in / out / cached input per 1M$4.00 / $20.00 / $0.200–
API model IDclaude-opus-5-5–
Where to use itClaude API, Amazon Bedrock, Google Cloud, Microsoft Foundry–

Limits, availability and announced prices from the vendors' own pages: docs.anthropic.com (checked 20 Oct 2026). Everything else is from the day's data.

Category by category

Category scores on the BenchLeader scale: 50 is the average evaluated model, 15 points is one standard deviation. A gap under one point is called level.

CategoryClaude Opus 5.5 (max)Muse Wonder Full (max)Leader
Reasoning75.895.0Muse Wonder Full
Coding82.272.2Claude Opus 5.5
Agents & tools63.5–not comparable
Maths74.4–not comparable
Knowledge78.771.4Claude Opus 5.5
Multimodal71.0–not comparable
Long context67.567.0level
Composite94.292.1Claude Opus 5.5

Where sources disagree

Across the 14 benchmarks both have, Claude Opus 5.5 leads 9, Muse Wonder Full leads 5. Every overall index that rates both puts Claude Opus 5.5 ahead.

Overall indexClaude Opus 5.5 (max)Muse Wonder Full (max)Leader
BenchLeader Index72.770.7neck and neck
AA Intelligence Index v4.3.257.655.8Claude Opus 5.5
Vals Index70.2†66.8Claude Opus 5.5

Each publisher runs its own tasks, harnesses and effort settings, so their overall verdicts can differ; BenchLeader reconciles them on one scale. † measured at another effort setting of the same model (the publisher did not test the one compared here).

Price, speed and latency

List prices blended at three input tokens per output token. Per-task prices use the token counts on the methodology page; suite cost is what Artificial Analysis paid to run its whole Intelligence Index.

MeasureClaude Opus 5.5 (max)Muse Wonder Full (max)
Blended price per 1M tokens$8.00–
Input / output per 1M$4.00 / $20.00– / –
Cached input per 1M$0.200–
Price per task: chat reply$0.0076–
Price per task: summarize a 30-page report$0.060–
Price per task: code edit$0.054–
Price per task: agentic coding session$0.320–
Price per task: structured extraction$0.012–
Cost to run a full benchmark suite$5.98–
Output speed95 tok/s–
Time to first answer608.7 s–
Time to a complete answer613.9 s–

Each model is compared at its best-ranked reasoning-effort setting. Claude Opus 5.5 (max) scores 72.7 and takes 609 s to its first answer token; Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh) scores 70.1 in 114 s, Claude Opus 5.5 (high) scores 69.4 in 34 s. Muse Wonder Full (max) scores 70.7. Higher effort means more thinking before the answer: better scores, longer waits and more tokens billed. How reasoning effort changes scores and cost.

Every benchmark

109 benchmarks, grouped by category; each name links to the board and its leaders. † measured at another effort setting of the same model, shown for reference and not counted as a win.

MetricPublisherClaude Opus 5.5 (max)Muse Wonder Full (max)
BenchLeader IndexBenchLeader72.770.7
Agents & tools scoreBenchLeader63.5–
Coding scoreBenchLeader82.272.2
Composite scoreBenchLeader94.292.1
Knowledge scoreBenchLeader78.771.4
Long context scoreBenchLeader67.567.0
Maths scoreBenchLeader74.4–
Multimodal scoreBenchLeader71.0–
Reasoning scoreBenchLeader75.895.0
Blended price $/MBenchLeader$8.00–
Output speedBenchLeader95 tok/s–
Time to first answerBenchLeader608.7 s–
Context windowBenchLeader1,000,000 tokens1,000,000 tokens
Reasoning
GPQA DiamondEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub90.6%–
Arena Hard PromptsArena (LMArena)1533†–
LiveBench 2.0 ReasoningLiveBench92.2%†–
LiveBench 1.0 ReasoningLiveBench92.2%–
Humanity's Last Exam (AA)Artificial Analysis61.4%53.6%
ARC-AGI-1ARC Prize97.5%–
ARC-AGI-2ARC Prize91.7%–
CritPtArtificial Analysis31.7%32.9%
MysteryMechanismVals AI49.5%†35.1%
Chess PuzzlesEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub67.0%–
Mystery Game PuzzlesEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub71.0%–
LMCAEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub68.2%–
DTBenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub98.9%–
Coding
SciCodeSciCode66.9%–
FrontierCodeCognition54.6%†–
Arena CodingArena (LMArena)1548†–
Arena WebDevArena (LMArena)18071726
LiveBench 2.0 CodingLiveBench96.3%†–
LiveBench 1.0 CodingLiveBench89.3%–
SciCode (AA)Artificial Analysis66.9%62.6%
IOIVals AI95.1%†79.8%
Code MigrationVals AI66.7%†61.0%
ProgramBenchVals AI18.5%†0.5%
Vibe Code Bench 1-100Vals AI30.4%†34.0%
Vibe Code Bench v1.1Vals AI90.3%†86.0%
Show all 109 benchmarks
MetricPublisherClaude Opus 5.5 (max)Muse Wonder Full (max)
Coding
MirrorCodeEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub77.4%–
CursorBenchCursor57.8%–
ALE-BenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub2147.4†–
FrontierSWEEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub62.3%–
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA)Artificial Analysis59.6%57.1%
Startrise FrontendStartrise71.1%†–
FrontierCode 1.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis52.2%–
Agents & tools
Terminal-BenchTerminal-Bench64.8%–
Remote Labor IndexScale AI / CAIS21.3%†–
APEX-AgentsMercor73.5%–
Arena AgentArena (LMArena)20.4–
LiveBench Long AgenticLiveBench85.0%†–
LiveBench BrowserLiveBench80.0%†–
LiveBench Agentic CodingLiveBench71.7%–
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)Vals AI87.6%†–
HiL-BenchScale AI SEAL59.0%†–
GDPval-AA v2.1Artificial Analysis68.3%67.8%
ITBench SRE (AA)Artificial Analysis38.2%–
Analyst Agent (AA)Artificial Analysis56.3%–
CUA-benchVals AI14.0%–
CyberBenchVals AI55.4%†73.6%
Finance Agent v2Vals AI58.6%†59.1%
Harvey's Legal Agent BenchmarkVals AI9.2%†23.3%
Legal Research BenchVals AI50.5%†53.4%
SREBenchVals AI33.6%†11.8%
Tax Agent BenchVals AI45.6%†43.0%
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals)Vals AI65.2%†58.1%
Terminal-Bench ScienceVals AI47.1%†37.1%
Time Horizon Index: KSPVals AI91.3%†–
Arena SearchArena (LMArena)1211†–
Vending-Bench 2Andon Labs9235.3†–
AutomationBenchArtificial Analysis69.5%71.3%
GDP.pdf (AA)Artificial Analysis26.2%32.6%
Harvey LAB-AA v1.1Harvey4.2%13.1%
AA-Briefcase v1.1Artificial Analysis18031729
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis59.0%–
CWE-Bench (AA)Artificial Analysis58.3%–
DeepSec-Bench (AA)Artificial Analysis26.9%–
CyberGym end-to-end (AA)Artificial Analysis0.8%–
FACTS SearchGoogle86.5%†–
Maths
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub91.2%–
FrontierMath Tier 4Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub95.0%–
OTIS Mock AIMEEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub100.0%–
ProofBenchVals AI100.0%–
LiveBench MathematicsLiveBench97.1%–
Arena MathsArena (LMArena)1502†–
Knowledge
SimpleQA VerifiedEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub72.2%–
LiveBench 2.0 Data AnalysisLiveBench80.3%†–
LiveBench ResearchLiveBench85.0%†–
LiveBench 1.0 Data AnalysisLiveBench80.3%–
AA-OmniscienceArtificial Analysis46.430.1
LegalBenchVals AI–87.4%
PRBench LegalScale AI SEAL47.6%†–
BioMysteryBenchVals AI79.3%†73.3%
Excel Modeling BenchmarkVals AI75.9%†71.9%
MedCodeVals AI49.8%†49.9%
MedScribeVals AI91.4%†89.3%
Public Benefits BenchVals AI70.6%†73.8%
EBR-benchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub71.4%–
GDP.pdfEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub30.6%–
AA-Omniscience: accuracyArtificial Analysis66.2%43.2%
AA-Omniscience: non-hallucinationArtificial Analysis41.4%77.0%
Instruction following
LiveBench LanguageLiveBench86.3%–
LiveBench Instruction FollowingLiveBench65.7%–
Arena Instruction FollowingArena (LMArena)1518†–
Human preference
Arena TextArena (LMArena)1508†–
Arena Creative WritingArena (LMArena)1519†–
Arena Multi-turnArena (LMArena)1501†–
Arena Longer QueriesArena (LMArena)1523†–
Multimodal
Arena VisionArena (LMArena)1321†–
LiveBench DesignLiveBench86.9%†–
MMMU-ProArtificial Analysis87.7%–
SAGEVals AI45.8%†–
Blueprint-Bench 2Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub51.2%†–
AA-3DArtificial Analysis1191–
Long context
AA-LCRArtificial Analysis84.7%83.7%
MLCRArtificial Analysis66.7%–
Composite
Epoch Capabilities IndexEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub168.8†–
LiveBench 2.0LiveBench86.5%†–
LiveBench 1.0LiveBench83.2%–
AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2Artificial Analysis57.655.8
Vals IndexVals AI70.2†66.8
AA Cyber IndexArtificial Analysis28.7–
Safety & honesty
FORTRESSScale AI SEAL5.8%–

Data as of 2026-10-21. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.

What changed

  • Muse Wonder Full (max): BenchLeader Index 68.6 → 70.7.
  • Claude Opus 5.5 (max): 2 score revisions.
  • Muse Wonder Full (max): 1 new result (Arena WebDev); 2 score revisions.
  • Claude Opus 5.5 (max): BenchLeader Index 71.9 → 72.6.
  • Claude Opus 5.5 (max): 1 new result (FORTRESS).
  • Claude Opus 5.5 (max): BenchLeader Index 71.3 → 71.9.
  • Claude Opus 5.5 (max): 1 score revision.
  • Muse Wonder Full (max): 21 new results (IOI, LegalBench, Vals Index…).
  • Claude Opus 5.5 (max): 1 new result (Chess Puzzles); 1 score revision.
  • Claude Opus 5.5 (max): 1 new result (Arena Agent).

Rankings: Best LLM overall · Best LLM for coding · Best LLM for agents · Best cheap LLMs

Claude Opus 5.5 vs Muse Wonder Full: questions

Is Claude Opus 5.5 better than Muse Wonder Full?
Claude Opus 5.5 (max) and Muse Wonder Full (max) are neck and neck on quality (72.7 vs 70.7, within the ±10.4 margin). The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; the two are within the margin of error as of 2026-10-21, so check the category scores for your use.
Is Claude Opus 5.5 better than Muse Wonder Full for coding?
Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher in coding (82 vs 72 on the category index, where 50 is average). On Arena WebDev, the top shared coding benchmark, it is 1807 for Claude Opus 5.5 against 1726 for Muse Wonder Full.
Which is better for long documents?
They are level on long-context benchmarks (68 vs 67). Both accept 1,000,000 tokens of context.
Do independent benchmarks agree on Claude Opus 5.5 vs Muse Wonder Full?
Across the 14 benchmarks both have, Claude Opus 5.5 leads 9, Muse Wonder Full leads 5. Every overall index that rates both puts Claude Opus 5.5 ahead.
When was Muse Wonder Full released?
Muse Wonder Full was released on 12 Oct 2026.