Claude Fable 5.2 (High, Default Fallback) vs Muse Glimmer (High)
Which is better for the money: Claude Fable 5.2 (High, Default Fallback) by Anthropic or Muse Glimmer (High) by Meta? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-11-10.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Claude Fable 5.2 (High, Default Fallbac… scores 55.5 points higher (61.8 vs 6.3) but costs 37× as much to run the benchmark ($7106 vs $191; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Claude Fable 5.2 (High, Default Fallbac… when you need intelligence above 6.3, and Muse Glimmer (High) when 6.3 is enough.
| Metric | Claude Fable 5.2 (High, Default Fallback) | Muse Glimmer (High) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 61.8 | 6.3 | −89.8% Muse Glimmer (High) is 89.8% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $7,105.77 | $190.55 | −97.3% Muse Glimmer (High) is 97.3% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 35.25s | 24.26s | −31.2% Muse Glimmer (High) is 31.2% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $8.00 / $40.0 | $0.30 / $1.20 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image |
Muse Glimmer (High) vs Claude Fable 5.2 (High, Default Fallback): 89.8% less intelligence, 97.3% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 31.2% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Claude Fable 5.2 (High, Default Fallback) is on today's frontier: nothing is both smarter and cheaper.
- Muse Glimmer (High) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Terra (Medium) scores 38.20 for $190.
Claude Fable 5.2 (High, Default Fallback)Muse Glimmer (High)Today's Pareto frontierOpen-weights 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-5-2-high/muse-glimmer · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-fable-5-2-high/muse-glimmer?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill