The two are evenly matched.Claude Fable 5.1 is better at long documents; Muse Wonder Full at agents.
Scores updated · 15 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the five areas where both have results. Each piece is one test, so a longer bar means more evidence; grey means the two scored within a point of each other.
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own02Muse Wonder Full2 of 2 tests
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts10Claude Fable 5.11 of 1 test
- CodingWriting and fixing software00Even0 each · 1 tie
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking11Even1 each
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up11Even1 each
Coding and long documents rest on a single test each.
What it costs
Prices per million tokens, roughly 750,000 words. The bars show the cost of a million tokens read plus a million written.
The biggest differences
The three tests each model wins by the widest margin. Scores are out of 100.
Where Muse Wonder Full pulls ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+49.6points ahead
- Real work tasks from 44 professionsGDPVal+5.1points ahead
- Complex command-line tasks across many fieldsTerminal-Bench 4.0+5.1points ahead
Where Claude Fable 5.1 pulls ahead
- Answers hard knowledge questions correctlyAA-Omniscience · Accuracy+24points ahead
- Very hard expert questions across many subjectsHumanity's Last Exam+5.5points ahead
- Reasons across sets of long documentsAA-LCR+1.6points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 15 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
AgentsMuse Wonder Full
- GDPValMuse Wonder Full by 5.162.867.9+5.1
- Terminal-Bench 4.0Muse Wonder Full by 5.15257.1+5.1
ReasoningEven
- Humanity's Last ExamClaude Fable 5.1 by 5.559.153.6+5.5
- CritPtMuse Wonder Full by 3.229.732.9+3.2
FactsEven
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationMuse Wonder Full by 49.627.477+49.6
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyClaude Fable 5.1 by 2467.243.2+24
Other results7 tests, not counted
Tests outside the eight areas. They are not counted above: several are summary scores built from other tests, or the same test under another name.
- GDP (Surge AI)Claude Fable 5.1 by 51.985.133.2+51.9
- Program BenchClaude Fable 5.1 by 28.687.659+28.6
- AA-OmniscienceClaude Fable 5.1 by 13.343.530.1+13.3
- DeepSWE 1.1Muse Wonder Full by 11.667.479+11.6
- AA IntelligenceMuse Wonder Full by 2.453.455.8+2.4
- OSWorld 2.1 partialClaude Fable 5.1 by 2.380.778.4+2.3
- HealthBench Professionaltie62.162.3tie
Questions people ask
Which is better, Claude Fable 5.1 or Muse Wonder Full?
Claude Fable 5.1 and Muse Wonder Full each win one of the five areas where both have results. Claude Fable 5.1 wins long documents; Muse Wonder Full wins agents. They are level on coding, reasoning and facts.
Which is better for coding?
Neither. All 1 coding tests both models report are ties.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 15 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 8 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 7 are listed but not counted, because several are summary scores or repeat a test. Each score is the one shown on the model's own page.