Claude Opus 4.8 vs Muse Wonder Full
Wins 0 of 5 areas
—
Wins 4 of 5 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Long documents
Muse Wonder Full is the stronger all-rounder.
Scores updated · 16 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
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking02Muse Wonder Full2 of 2 tests
- CodingWriting and fixing software01Muse Wonder Full1 of 1 test
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts01Muse Wonder Full1 of 1 test
- 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 tests each model wins by the widest margin, up to three each. Scores are out of 100.
Where Muse Wonder Full pulls ahead
- Complex command-line tasks across many fieldsTerminal-Bench 4.0+35.4points ahead
- Real work tasks from 44 professionsGDPVal+20.2points ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+16.3points ahead
Where Claude Opus 4.8 pulls ahead
- Answers hard knowledge questions correctlyAA-Omniscience · Accuracy+5.6points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 16 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
AgentsMuse Wonder Full
- Terminal-Bench 4.0Muse Wonder Full by 35.421.757.1+35.4
- GDPValMuse Wonder Full by 20.247.767.9+20.2
ReasoningMuse Wonder Full
- CritPtMuse Wonder Full by 1220.932.9+12
- Humanity's Last ExamMuse Wonder Full by 4.948.753.6+4.9
FactsEven
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationMuse Wonder Full by 16.360.777+16.3
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyClaude Opus 4.8 by 5.648.843.2+5.6
Other results8 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 Opus 4.8 by 51.684.833.2+51.6
- SWE-MarathonMuse Wonder Full by 31.52657.5+31.5
- JobBenchMuse Wonder Full by 26.948.475.3+26.9
- DeepSWE 1.1Muse Wonder Full by 205979+20
- AA IntelligenceMuse Wonder Full by 1441.855.8+14
- Program BenchClaude Opus 4.8 by 12.971.959+12.9
- HealthBench ProfessionalMuse Wonder Full by 6.555.862.3+6.5
- AA-OmniscienceMuse Wonder Full by 1.428.830.1+1.4
Questions people ask
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.8 or Muse Wonder Full?
Muse Wonder Full wins four of the five areas where both have results: coding, agents, reasoning and long documents. Claude Opus 4.8 wins none. They are level on facts.
Which is better for coding?
Muse Wonder Full. It wins the one coding test both models report.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 16 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 8 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.