ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Nov 2, 2026

Muse Wonder vs Claude Fable 5.1

Too close to call on our weighted score (Muse Wonder 68, Claude Fable 5.1 66). The right pick depends on what you value most.

  1. Meta

    Muse Wonder

    Released Oct 12, 2026New

    68/100
    • ECI161.7
    • Price$4.00 / $20.00
    • Context1.05M
    Full specs Remove Muse Wonder

  2. Anthropic

    Claude Fable 5.1

    Released Sep 1, 2026

    66/100
    • ECI166.4
    • Price$10.00 / $50.00
    • Context1M
    Full specs Remove Claude Fable 5.1

  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

01 — Verdict

Too close to call

It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 2 points (Muse Wonder 68/100, Claude Fable 5.1 66/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Claude Fable 5.1 for raw capability, Muse Wonder on price and Muse Wonder for long inputs. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

  • CapabilityClaude Fable 5.1Capabilities Index (ECI): Claude Fable 5.1 166.4 · Muse Wonder 161.7
  • Lowest priceMuse WonderMuse Wonder $8.00 · Claude Fable 5.1 $20.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextMuse WonderMuse Wonder 1,048,576 · Claude Fable 5.1 1,000,000 tokens
  • Widest inputsMuse WonderMuse Wonder: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video · Claude Fable 5.1: Text, Images, PDFs
  • Self-hostingNo open weightsBoth are available only through APIs
How the score is built
MeasureWeightMuse WonderClaude Fable 5.1
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%9197
Price25%70
Inputs & features15%10080
Context window10%6160
Overall100%68/10066/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

Muse Wonder vs Claude Fable 5.1 specifications side by side
SpecificationMuse WonderMetaClaude Fable 5.1Anthropic
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)161.7166.4 (best)
ECI rank#13 of 165#6 of 165 (best)
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics82.1%90.2% (best)
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics99.4%100% (best)
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions—70.8%
Price per million tokens
Input$4.00 (best)$10.00
Output$20.00 (best)$50.00
Cached input$0.20 (best)$0.25
Blended (3:1)$8.00 (best)$20.00
Long-context rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceOfficial Meta APIOfficial Anthropic API
Limits
Context window1,048,576 tokens (best)1,000,000 tokens
Max output131,072 tokens (best)128,000 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesYesYes
PDFsYesYes
AudioYesNo
VideoYesNo
ReasoningYesminimal · low · medium · high · xhigh · maxYeslow · medium · high · xhigh · max
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputYesYes
Availability
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
API model IDmuse-wonder-1.0claude-fable-5-1
API providers937 (best)
ReleasedOct 12, 2026Sep 1, 2026
Knowledge cutoff—Jun 2026
03 — Cost

What would a month cost?

Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.

  • Muse Wonder$80.00
  • Claude Fable 5.1$200.00
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Muse Wonder or Claude Fable 5.1?

It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 2 points (Muse Wonder 68/100, Claude Fable 5.1 66/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Claude Fable 5.1 for raw capability, Muse Wonder on price and Muse Wonder for long inputs. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

Which is cheaper, Muse Wonder or Claude Fable 5.1?

Muse Wonder is cheaper at $4.00 input / $20.00 output per million tokens (official Meta API price). Claude Fable 5.1 costs $10.00 input / $50.00 output per million tokens (official Anthropic API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $8.00 per million tokens for Muse Wonder versus $20.00 for Claude Fable 5.1 (2.5× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Claude Fable 5.1 166.4 (#6 of 165) and Muse Wonder 161.7 (#13 of 165). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (163.6–170.8 vs 159.2–164.6), so treat the gap as small. On individual benchmarks: FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 — Claude Fable 5.1 90.2%, Muse Wonder 82.1%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — Claude Fable 5.1 100%, Muse Wonder 99.4%.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Muse Wonder and Claude Fable 5.1 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Claude Fable 5.1 leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.

Which has the bigger context window?

Muse Wonder has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 1,000,000 for Claude Fable 5.1. Maximum output per response: Muse Wonder up to 131,072, Claude Fable 5.1 up to 128,000 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Muse Wonder accepts text, images, PDFs, audio and video; Claude Fable 5.1 accepts text, images and PDFs. Muse Wonder handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

No. Muse Wonder and Claude Fable 5.1 are proprietary and only available through APIs and apps.

Which is newer?

Muse Wonder is the newest, released Oct 12, 2026. Claude Fable 5.1 came out Sep 1, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: Claude Fable 5.1 Jun 2026.

How do you decide the winner?

Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Nov 2, 2026.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons