Claude Fable 5.2 (Xhigh, Default Fallback) vs Muse Wonder (Max)
Which is better for the money: Claude Fable 5.2 (Xhigh, 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 2026-11-10.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Claude Fable 5.2 (Xhigh, Default Fallba… scores 18.6 points higher (62.2 vs 43.6) but costs 2.2× as much to run the benchmark ($11742 vs $5414; both flagship class). Pick Claude Fable 5.2 (Xhigh, Default Fallba… when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise Muse Wonder (Max).
| Metric | Claude Fable 5.2 (Xhigh, Default Fallback) | Muse Wonder (Max) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 62.2 | 43.6 | −29.9% Muse Wonder (Max) is 29.9% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $11,741.62 | $5,414.45 | −53.9% Muse Wonder (Max) is 53.9% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 102.03s | 54.31s | −46.8% Muse Wonder (Max) is 46.8% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $8.00 / $40.0 | $4.00 / $20.0 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image, Speech, Video |
Muse Wonder (Max) vs Claude Fable 5.2 (Xhigh, Default Fallback): 29.9% less intelligence, 53.9% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 46.8% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Claude Fable 5.2 (Xhigh, Default Fallback) is on today's frontier: nothing is both smarter and cheaper.
- Muse Wonder (Max) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Opus 5.5 (Xhigh, Default Fallback) scores 57.40 for $4766.
Claude Fable 5.2 (Xhigh, 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-5-2-xhigh/muse-wonder · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-fable-5-2-xhigh/muse-wonder?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill