Claude Opus 5.5 vs Muse Wonder
Too close to call on our weighted score (Claude Opus 5.5 69, Muse Wonder 68). The right pick depends on what you value most.
AnthropicClaude Opus 5.5
69/100- ECI168.4
- Price$4.00 / $20.00
- Context1M
MetaMuse Wonder
68/100- ECI161.7
- Price$4.00 / $20.00
- Context1.05M
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Too close to call
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 1 points (Claude Opus 5.5 69/100, Muse Wonder 68/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Claude Opus 5.5 for raw capability and Muse Wonder for long inputs. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
- CapabilityClaude Opus 5.5Capabilities Index (ECI): Claude Opus 5.5 168.4 · Muse Wonder 161.7
- Lowest priceSame priceClaude Opus 5.5 $8.00 · Muse Wonder $8.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextMuse WonderMuse Wonder 1,048,576 · Claude Opus 5.5 1,000,000 tokens
- Widest inputsMuse WonderClaude Opus 5.5: Text, Images, PDFs · Muse Wonder: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video
- Self-hostingNo open weightsBoth are available only through APIs
| Measure | Weight | Claude Opus 5.5 | Muse Wonder |
|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI) | 50% | 99 | 91 |
| Price | 25% | 7 | 7 |
| Inputs & features | 15% | 80 | 100 |
| Context window | 10% | 60 | 61 |
| Overall | 100% | 69/100 | 68/100 |
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Claude Opus 5.5Anthropic | Muse WonderMeta |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 168.4 (best) | 161.7 |
| ECI rank | #2 of 165 (best) | #13 of 165 |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 90.6% | — |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics | 91.2% (best) | 82.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 100% (best) | 99.4% |
| SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions | 72.2% | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $4.00 | $4.00 |
| Output | $20.00 | $20.00 |
| Cached input | $0.20 | $0.20 |
| Blended (3:1) | $8.00 | $8.00 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Anthropic API | Official Meta API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 128,000 tokens | 131,072 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | Yes |
| PDFs | Yes | Yes |
| Audio | No | Yes |
| Video | No | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yeslow · medium · high · xhigh · max | Yesminimal · low · medium · high · xhigh · max |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | Yes |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| API model ID | claude-opus-5-5 | muse-wonder-1.0 |
| API providers | 36 (best) | 9 |
| Released | Sep 22, 2026 | Oct 12, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Jun 2026 | — |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Claude Opus 5.5$80.00
- Muse Wonder$80.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Claude Opus 5.5 or Muse Wonder?
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 1 points (Claude Opus 5.5 69/100, Muse Wonder 68/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Claude Opus 5.5 for raw capability and Muse Wonder for long inputs. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 5.5 or Muse Wonder?
Claude Opus 5.5 and Muse Wonder cost the same: $4.00 input / $20.00 output per million tokens.
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Claude Opus 5.5 168.4 (#2 of 165) and Muse Wonder 161.7 (#13 of 165). Their confidence ranges do not overlap (165.4–173.0 vs 159.2–164.6), so the gap is a real one. On individual benchmarks: FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 — Claude Opus 5.5 91.2%, Muse Wonder 82.1%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — Claude Opus 5.5 100%, Muse Wonder 99.4%.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Claude Opus 5.5 and Muse Wonder yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Claude Opus 5.5 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 Opus 5.5. Maximum output per response: Claude Opus 5.5 up to 128,000, Muse Wonder up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Claude Opus 5.5 accepts text, images and PDFs; Muse Wonder accepts text, images, PDFs, audio and video. Muse Wonder handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
No. Claude Opus 5.5 and Muse Wonder are proprietary and only available through APIs and apps.
Which is newer?
Muse Wonder is the newest, released Oct 12, 2026. Claude Opus 5.5 came out Sep 22, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: Claude Opus 5.5 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.
Related comparisons
- Add GPT-6.1 SolThree-way comparison
- Claude Opus 5.5 vs GPT-6.1 SolOpenAI · ECI 167.8
- Claude Opus 5.5 vs Gemini 4 ArgonGoogle · ECI 166.1
- Claude Opus 5.5 vs Kimi K3Moonshot AI · ECI 158.3
- Muse Wonder vs GPT-5.6 SolOpenAI · ECI 162.6
- Muse Wonder vs Claude Opus 5Anthropic · ECI 164.5
- Muse Wonder vs Kimi K3Moonshot AI · ECI 158.3
