// head_to_head
Claude Fable 5.2 vs Muse Wonder
Published LiveBench scores across all seven categories, live list pricing, context windows, and the measured cost of a point of capability — for both models, side by side.
Claude Fable 5.2 scores higher, Muse Wonder costs less — it depends on your workload.
Claude Fable 5.2 is ahead by 14.2 points overall, and Muse Wonder lists 2.0× cheaper per blended million tokens. Whether 14.2 points is worth that depends on how much a wrong answer costs you. Muse Wonder also leads on measured cost per point of capability, at $0.0246 per point.
anthropic
Claude Fable 5.2
- Blended / 1M
- $16.00
- Context
- 1M
- Released
- Nov 9, 2026
- Overall score
- 84.9
meta
Muse Wonder
- Blended / 1M
- $8.00
- Context
- 1.0M
- Released
- Oct 12, 2026
- Overall score
- 70.7
Specs and pricing
| Metric | Claude Fable 5.2 | Muse Wonder |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench overall Weighted mean of the seven LiveBench category scores, 0–100. Higher is better. | 84.9win | 70.7 |
| Cost per point Measured benchmark spend divided by overall score — dollars per point of capability. | $0.0985 | $0.0246win |
| Blended price / 1M 3:1 input:output mix, the usual shape of production traffic. | $16.00 | $8.00win |
| Input price / 1M | $8.00 | $4.00win |
| Output price / 1M | $40.00 | $20.00win |
| Cached input / 1M Price of an input token served from the prompt cache, where the provider publishes one. | $0.200 | $0.200 |
| Context window | 1M | 1.0M |
| Max output tokens | 128K | 944Kwin |
Benchmarks by category
An overall score averages away the thing you probably care about. These are the seven LiveBench categories scored separately — Claude Fable 5.2 on top, Muse Wonder below, both out of 100.
What each one costs to run
Per-token prices are hard to feel. These are monthly list costs for both models across five workload shapes, using each provider's published cached-input rate where there is one.
| Workload | Claude Fable 5.2 | Muse Wonder |
|---|---|---|
| Support chatbot 1.2K in / 400 out × 200K requests | $4,558/mo | $2,286/mo |
| RAG assistant 8K in / 600 out × 100K requests | $5,680/mo | $2,880/mo |
| Coding agent 40K in / 4K out × 20K requests | $5,232/mo | $2,672/mo |
| Document extraction 20K in / 1.5K out × 50K requests | $10,610/mo | $5,310/mo |
| Bulk classification 500 in / 20 out × 5M requests | $20,100/mo | $10,100/mo |
Which should you pick?
You are running this at volume
Muse Wonder
Lowest measured cost per point of capability at $0.0246 per point — the gap compounds with every request.
Quality matters more than the bill
Claude Fable 5.2
Highest overall LiveBench score of the two at 84.9.
The workload is coding or agentic work
Claude Fable 5.2
Leads on long-horizon agentic — 82.9 against 46.2.
Claude Fable 5.2 vs Muse Wonder FAQ
Which is better, Claude Fable 5.2 or Muse Wonder?
Claude Fable 5.2 scores higher, Muse Wonder costs less — it depends on your workload. Claude Fable 5.2 is ahead by 14.2 points overall, and Muse Wonder lists 2.0× cheaper per blended million tokens. Whether 14.2 points is worth that depends on how much a wrong answer costs you. Muse Wonder also leads on measured cost per point of capability, at $0.0246 per point.
Is Claude Fable 5.2 cheaper than Muse Wonder?
Muse Wonder is cheaper. On a 3:1 input:output blend, Claude Fable 5.2 lists at $16.00 per million tokens and Muse Wonder at $8.00 — Muse Wonder is 2.0× cheaper. Input and output are priced separately — Claude Fable 5.2 charges $8.00 in and $40.00 out, Muse Wonder charges $4.00 and $20.00 — so the model that looks cheaper flips depending on how output-heavy your workload is.
Claude Fable 5.2 vs Muse Wonder: which scores higher on benchmarks?
Claude Fable 5.2 scores 84.9 and Muse Wonder scores 70.7 overall on LiveBench, the weighted mean of its seven categories. That is a 14.2-point lead for Claude Fable 5.2. Category scores differ from the overall figure — a model can lead on reasoning and trail on coding, which the per-category table above breaks out.
Which gives better value for money, Claude Fable 5.2 or Muse Wonder?
Muse Wonder. Cost per point divides the measured dollars LiveBench spent running the benchmark by the score it earned, so it captures something token pricing misses: a reasoning model can emit many times more tokens than its per-token rate suggests. Claude Fable 5.2 works out at $0.0985 per point and Muse Wonder at $0.0246.
Does Claude Fable 5.2 or Muse Wonder have a bigger context window?
They are effectively the same — 1M for Claude Fable 5.2 and 1.0M for Muse Wonder.
Do Claude Fable 5.2 and Muse Wonder support prompt caching?
Both publish a cached-input rate: $0.200 per million for Claude Fable 5.2 and $0.200 for Muse Wonder, against full input rates of $8.00 and $4.00. On a workload with a long stable prefix — a system prompt, a tool schema, a retrieved corpus — that changes the economics more than the headline price does.
Related comparisons
How these numbers are produced
- Price — provider list price from OpenRouter, refreshed every 15 minutes. “Blended” is a 3:1 input:output mix.
- Scores — LiveBench release 2026-11-06, using their own category map. Each model shows its strongest published run. A blank means “not evaluated”, never “bad”.
- Cost per point — the measured dollars LiveBench spent on the run, divided by the score it earned.
- “Win” — awarded only past a threshold: one full point on a benchmark score, 10% on a price, 25% on a context window. Anything tighter reports as a tie, because effort settings alone move a LiveBench score by more than that.
Published benchmarks rank models on someone else's tasks. Before committing, see LLM & agent evaluation for building an eval on your own.