Muse Wonder vs Claude Opus 5.5: Benchmarks & Price

Two Points on the Intelligence Index: Comparing Muse Wonder and Claude Opus 5.5

Muse Wonder is Meta's new frontier model family, launched October 12, 2026, whose top variant Muse Wonder Full scored 56 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index — ranking #2 in the world, two points behind Claude Opus 5.5 at 58. Muse Wonder leads on agentic and long-horizon coding benchmarks (SWE-Marathon 57.5% vs 46.3%) and reportedly matches Opus on token price, while Claude Opus 5.5 holds the #1 overall Intelligence Index spot and leads on ProgramBench and Terminal-Bench — the right pick depends on whether you prioritize sustained agentic workflows or top-ranked general reasoning. One caveat frames everything below: the Muse Wonder figures circulating so far are Meta-reported numbers, not independent evaluations.

Key Takeaways

• Overall intelligence: Claude Opus 5.5 is #1 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index at 58; Muse Wonder Full is #2 at 56, and the base Muse Wonder sits at 52.
• Agentic coding: Meta-reported numbers put Muse Wonder Full ahead on SWE-Marathon (57.5% vs 46.3%) and DeepSWE 1.1 (~79% vs 74.2), while Opus 5.5 leads ProgramBench (70.5 vs 50.0) and Terminal-Bench (59.6 vs 52.0).
• Price: Community reports list Muse Wonder at $4/M input and $20/M output — the same price community sources attribute to Claude Opus 5.5. Neither is confirmed by an official pricing page in the sources reviewed.
• Access: Muse Wonder ships via the Meta Model API and Muse Code; Muse Wonder Full is subscriber-only. Opus 5.5 is on Anthropic's API.
• Differentiators: Meta leans on Active Memory and Active Focus for personal and professional agents. Opus 5.5's edge is top-ranked general reasoning and lead benchmark scores on classic coding evals.

Muse Wonder vs Claude Opus 5.5 at a Glance

Dimension	Muse Wonder (Full)	Claude Opus 5.5
Vendor	Meta	Anthropic
AA Intelligence Index	56 (Full) / 52 (base)	58
Index rank	#2	#1
SWE-Marathon	57.5%	46.3%
DeepSWE 1.1	~79% (78.8)	74.2
ProgramBench	50.0	70.5
Terminal-Bench	52.0	59.6
Reported input price	$4 / M tokens (unconfirmed)	$4 / M tokens (unconfirmed)
Reported output price	$20 / M tokens (unconfirmed)	$20 / M tokens (unconfirmed)
Context window	1M tokens (single-source, unconfirmed)	Not confirmed in sources reviewed
Access	Meta Model API, Muse Code (Full: subscribers only)	Anthropic API
Launch	October 12, 2026	Already shipping (current SOTA)

All Muse Wonder benchmark cells reflect Meta-reported figures relayed by community posts; Opus 5.5's 58 is its standing Artificial Analysis score. Independent re-tests had not been published when these numbers circulated.

Benchmarks: Where Each Model Wins

The headline number is the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index. Muse Wonder Full scored 56, up from 52 for the base model and 48 for the earlier Muse Spark 1.3; Claude Opus 5.5 holds 58 as the current #1. That gap is two points.

The coding picture splits cleanly. On sustained agentic evaluations, Meta's numbers favor Muse Wonder Full: 57.5% on SWE-Marathon against 46.3% for Claude Opus 5.5 (and 42.5% for GPT-6 Astra), plus roughly 79% on DeepSWE 1.1 versus 74.2 for Opus. On classic coding evals the order reverses — a benchmark recap put Muse Wonder at 50.0 on ProgramBench and 52.0 on Terminal-Bench, against Opus 5.5 at 70.5 and 59.6. So Opus keeps a "substantial lead" on ProgramBench while Muse Wonder pulls ahead on long-horizon work.

One more number worth flagging: on Meta's own Personal Superintelligence Index, Muse Wonder Full was reported at 59.1, ahead of Claude Opus 5.5 at 55.2 and GPT-6 Astra at 54.5. That is a Meta-authored benchmark, so treat it as a vendor framing rather than a neutral scoreboard.

The credibility caveat is load-bearing. The Artificial Analysis post was not live when Meta published its figures, and several commentators questioned "benchmaxxing." One recap author noted the comparison evaluation setups "aren't identical." None of these results had independent hands-on confirmation when they spread. For how Opus 5.5 earned its top ranking, see our profile of Claude Opus 5.5.

Pricing & Access: Parity on Paper

Three non-official posts converged on the same Muse Wonder API pricing: $4 per million input tokens, $20 per million output tokens, and $0.20 per million cached input tokens. One early post listed cache at $0.02, so even the community figures disagree at the margins.

Source: @LuminaBench

The notable part for this comparison: one post described Muse Wonder as "priced same as opus 5.5." Our earlier read on Opus 5.5 flagged the same $4/$20 token-price signal. If both hold, these models are at price parity — which pushes the decision onto capability and access rather than cost. No official Meta pricing page in the sources reviewed confirms the Muse Wonder numbers.

Access differs by vendor. Muse Wonder is available through the Meta Model API and Muse Code. Muse Wonder Full — the variant that scored 56 — runs at max reasoning and is limited to Muse Code subscribers; it is not on the API. So the model that ranks #2 is the one you cannot call via API. Claude Opus 5.5 is reached through Anthropic's API. If you want to pit a frontier Anthropic model against Muse Wonder in your own harness today, Claude Opus 5.5 is the directly comparable chat model. A single-source report also mentioned a 1M-token context window and text, image, audio, and video inputs for Muse Wonder; that is unconfirmed and the tier it applies to is unclear.

Capabilities: Active Memory, Active Focus, and the Agent Pitch

Meta's framing centers two coined features. Active Memory carries important context about a user across conversations and retrieves details relevant to the task at hand. Active Focus describes how the model sustains effort toward a hard goal — trying alternative approaches, working through blockers, and adapting to new information. Meta's research blog calls Muse Wonder a "frontier model that leads on personal and professional agents," with specialized datasets for law, finance, and health.

The operational pitch is long-running autonomy: Muse Wonder "plans the work, calls tools in parallel, hands parts off to sub-agents, and recovers from errors so complex jobs finish." That is a direct bid for the agentic-coding and knowledge-work niche. Claude Opus 5.5, by contrast, has no publicly documented feature named Active Memory or Active Focus in the sources reviewed; its differentiation is the top overall Intelligence Index score and leads on ProgramBench and Terminal-Bench.

Early usage signals are thin and mixed. One developer said they build Muse Code exclusively with Muse Wonder Full and found it "GREAT to use"; another reported a single run exhausting a five-hour limit and 38% of a weekly allowance. Those are isolated reports, not throughput benchmarks.

Which One Should You Use?

Choose Muse Wonder if:

• You run long-horizon agentic coding and value the reported SWE-Marathon and DeepSWE edge over Opus.
• You want persistent per-user context (Active Memory) for personal or professional agents.
• You are already inside Muse Code and can reach the max-reasoning Muse Wonder Full variant.

Choose Claude Opus 5.5 if:

• You want the #1 overall Intelligence Index model and top scores on ProgramBench and Terminal-Bench.
• You need API access to the single most capable variant today (Muse Wonder Full is subscriber-only).
• You prefer a model with a longer public track record over day-one vendor-reported numbers.

For a parallel matchup on the same scoreboard, our comparison of Muse Spark 1.3 and Claude Opus 5 shows how Meta's previous generation stacked up before this jump.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Muse Wonder better than Claude Opus 5.5? Muse Wonder is not clearly better overall. Claude Opus 5.5 ranks #1 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index at 58, while Muse Wonder Full ranks #2 at 56. Meta-reported numbers show Muse Wonder ahead on SWE-Marathon and DeepSWE but behind on ProgramBench and Terminal-Bench.

Is Muse Wonder cheaper than Claude Opus 5.5? No. Community reports put Muse Wonder at $4 per million input tokens and $20 per million output tokens, the same price community sources attribute to Claude Opus 5.5. Neither figure is confirmed by an official vendor pricing page in the sources reviewed.

What is the difference between Muse Wonder and Muse Wonder Full? Muse Wonder is available through the Meta Model API and Muse Code. Muse Wonder Full is the max-reasoning variant for the hardest, longest-running work and is limited to Muse Code subscribers, not offered on the API.

How does Muse Wonder score on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index versus Claude Opus 5.5? Muse Wonder Full scored 56 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index and Muse Wonder scored 52, versus 58 for Claude Opus 5.5. Those figures were posted by Meta ahead of Artificial Analysis publishing its own write-up.

Does Muse Wonder beat Claude Opus 5.5 at coding? It depends on the benchmark. Meta-reported figures show Muse Wonder ahead on SWE-Marathon (57.5% vs 46.3%) and DeepSWE 1.1 (about 79% vs 74.2), while Claude Opus 5.5 leads on ProgramBench (70.5 vs 50.0) and Terminal-Bench (59.6 vs 52.0).

What is Active Memory in Muse Wonder? Active Memory is Meta's term for Muse Wonder carrying important context about a user across conversations and retrieving details relevant to the current task. Claude Opus 5.5 has no publicly documented equivalent feature by that name.

Can I use Muse Wonder and Claude Opus 5.5 through the same API? Not through one vendor. Muse Wonder is accessed via the Meta Model API and Muse Code, while Claude Opus 5.5 is accessed through Anthropic's API. Muse Wonder Full is subscriber-only and absent from the API.

What to Watch Next

Three signals will settle this comparison. First, Artificial Analysis publishing its own Muse Wonder entry — independent confirmation of the 52/56 scores against Opus 5.5's 58. Second, an official Meta pricing page that either confirms or revises the $4/$20/$0.20 community figures and clarifies whether Muse Wonder Full ever reaches the API. Third, independent coding evaluations that test whether the SWE-Marathon and DeepSWE leads hold outside Meta's own harness. Until then, treat every Muse Wonder number here as vendor-reported.

Try related models on Kie.ai: Claude Opus 5.5, GPT-6 Astra and Claude Fable 5.1 (Coming Soon).