Muse Wonder Full vs Claude Opus 5
Wins 3 of 5 areas
Coding · Agents · Long documents
Wins 0 of 5 areas
—
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 own20Muse Wonder Full2 of 2 tests
- CodingWriting and fixing software10Muse Wonder Full1 of 1 test
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts10Muse Wonder Full1 of 1 test
- 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 tests each model wins by the widest margin, up to three each. Scores are out of 100.
Where Muse Wonder Full pulls ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+37.8points ahead
- Complex command-line tasks across many fieldsTerminal-Bench 4.0+8.1points ahead
- Real work tasks from 44 professionsGDPVal+6.8points ahead
Where Claude Opus 5 pulls ahead
- Answers hard knowledge questions correctlyAA-Omniscience · Accuracy+17.7points ahead
- Very hard expert questions across many subjectsHumanity's Last Exam+1.3points 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 8.157.149+8.1
- GDPValMuse Wonder Full by 6.867.961.1+6.8
ReasoningEven
- CritPtMuse Wonder Full by 3.832.929.1+3.8
- Humanity's Last ExamClaude Opus 5 by 1.353.654.9+1.3
FactsEven
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationMuse Wonder Full by 37.87739.2+37.8
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyClaude Opus 5 by 17.743.260.9+17.7
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 5 by 52.333.285.5+52.3
- Program BenchClaude Opus 5 by 26.45985.4+26.4
- DeepSWE 1.1Muse Wonder Full by 10.27968.8+10.2
- JobBenchMuse Wonder Full by 9.675.365.7+9.6
- AA-OmniscienceClaude Opus 5 by 6.930.137.1+6.9
- AA IntelligenceMuse Wonder Full by 555.850.8+5
- OSWorld 2.1 partialMuse Wonder Full by 4.478.474+4.4
- HealthBench ProfessionalMuse Wonder Full by 2.562.359.8+2.5
Questions people ask
Which is better, Muse Wonder Full or Claude Opus 5?
Muse Wonder Full wins three of the five areas where both have results: coding, agents and long documents. Claude Opus 5 wins none. They are level on reasoning and 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.