Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback) vs Muse Wonder (Max)
Which is better for the money: Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback) by Anthropic or Muse Wonder (Max) by Meta? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-26.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Muse Wonder (Max) scores 5.6 points higher (52.4 vs 46.8) but costs 1.8× as much to run the benchmark ($5787 vs $3158; both flagship class). Pick Muse Wonder (Max) when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback).
| Metric | Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback) | Muse Wonder (Max) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 46.8 | 52.4 | +12.0% Muse Wonder (Max) is 12.0% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $3,157.66 | $5,786.78 | +83.3% Muse Wonder (Max) is 83.3% more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 10.73s | 45.32s | +322.4% Muse Wonder (Max) is 322.4% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $10.0 / $50.0 | $4.00 / $20.0 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image, Speech, Video |
Muse Wonder (Max) vs Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback): 12.0% more intelligence, 83.3% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 322.4% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Kimi K3.1 Pro scores 55.10 for $3117.
- Muse Wonder (Max) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Opus 5.5 (Xhigh, Default Fallback) scores 56.00 for $4057.
Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback)Muse Wonder (Max)Today's Pareto frontierEvery other model
Matchup
Compare something else
Agents:
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/claude-fable-5-1-low/muse-wonder · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-fable-5-1-low/muse-wonder?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill