Claude Opus 5.5 vs Muse Wonder 1.0
Anthropic · US | Meta · US · Updated June 2026
Quick verdict
Pick Claude Opus 5.5 for performs at roughly claude fable 5.1's level on most work, at 40% lower typical workload cost than opus 5 or anthropic reports it surpasses fable 5.1 on agentic coding, knowledge work, computer use, visual chart recognition, and multidisciplinary reasoning. Pick Muse Wonder 1.0 for meta superintelligence labs' first frontier-class reasoning model — a new line distinct from the agentic-coding-focused muse spark family or artificial analysis intelligence index score of 52 (a gated 'wonder full' subscription variant scores 56, tied with claude sonnet 5.5, behind only opus 5.5 at 58).
Claude Opus 5.5 (Anthropic) and Muse Wonder 1.0 (Meta) are two of the models people most often weigh against each other in 2026. Claude Opus 5.5 is anthropic's September 22, 2026 update: Fable 5.1-level performance at 40% lower cost than Opus 5, with faster output and cheaper caching. Muse Wonder 1.0 is meta Superintelligence Labs' October 12, 2026 debut frontier model — distinct from Muse Spark, scoring 52 on the independent Artificial Analysis Index with a 1M-token, four-modality context window. Their biggest split is context window, and the breakdown below shows exactly how that plays out for your workload.
Key differences at a glance
- ▸Context window: 1M tokens vs 1M tokens — within a few percent of each other, so treat this as a tie and test on your own long inputs, since usable recall varies by model.
- ▸Recency: Muse Wonder 1.0 is the newer model by about 20 days (released October 12, 2026), usually meaning fresher training data and capabilities.
Side-by-side specs
| Spec | Claude Opus 5.5 | Muse Wonder 1.0 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic (US) | Meta (US) |
| Released | September 22, 2026 | October 12, 2026 |
| Context window | 1M tokens (~1,500 pages) | 1M tokens (~1,573 pages) |
| Price (in/out) | $4/$20 per 1M tokens | $4/$20 per 1M tokens |
| Open weight? | No — API only | No — API only |
| Modalities | text, image, code | text, image, video, audio |
| SWE-Bench Verified | Not published | Not published |
| MRCR v2 @ 1M | Not published | Not published |
Who wins what
Performs at roughly Claude Fable 5.1's level on most work, at 40% lower typical workload cost than Opus 5
Claude Opus 5.5
Claude Opus 5.5 lists performs at roughly Claude Fable 5.1's level on most work, at 40% lower typical workload cost than Opus 5 among its strengths; Muse Wonder 1.0 does not.
Anthropic reports it surpasses Fable 5.1 on agentic coding, knowledge work, computer use, visual chart recognition, and multidisciplinary reasoning
Claude Opus 5.5
Claude Opus 5.5 lists anthropic reports it surpasses Fable 5.1 on agentic coding, knowledge work, computer use, visual chart recognition, and multidisciplinary reasoning among its strengths; Muse Wonder 1.0 does not.
Pricing cut to $4/$20 per million tokens (20% below Opus 5's $5/$25), cache reads down 60% to $0.20/MTok
Claude Opus 5.5
Muse Wonder 1.0 is comparatively weak here — the stronger 'Wonder Full' variant is gated behind $50/$200-per-month Muse Code subscriptions, with no public API or independently verifiable pricing
Meta Superintelligence Labs' first frontier-class reasoning model — a new line distinct from the agentic-coding-focused Muse Spark family
Muse Wonder 1.0
Claude Opus 5.5 is comparatively weak here — not a reasoning-ceiling upgrade over Fable 5.1 — pitched as matching its performance at lower cost, not beating it outright
Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index score of 52 (a gated 'Wonder Full' subscription variant scores 56, tied with Claude Sonnet 5.5, behind only Opus 5.5 at 58)
Muse Wonder 1.0
Claude Opus 5.5 is comparatively weak here — first model in the 5.5 line; Anthropic has signaled Sonnet 5.5 and Haiku 5.5 are still weeks away, so the lower tiers of the family aren't out yet
78.8% on DeepSWE v1.1 long-horizon coding, ahead of both Claude Opus 5.5 (74.2%) and GPT-6 Astra (74.1%)
Muse Wonder 1.0
Meta Superintelligence Labs' October 12, 2026 debut frontier model — distinct from Muse Spark, scoring 52 on the independent Artificial Analysis Index with a 1M-token, four-modality context window — and it is the newer of the two.
Which should you pick?
Someone analysing very long documents or codebases
→ Muse Wonder 1.0
Larger 1M tokens window fits more in one prompt.
Anyone whose priority is performs at roughly claude fable 5.1's level on most work, at 40% lower typical workload cost than opus 5
→ Claude Opus 5.5
It is specifically built for that.
Anyone whose priority is meta superintelligence labs' first frontier-class reasoning model — a new line distinct from the agentic-coding-focused muse spark family
→ Muse Wonder 1.0
That is its strongest area.
Claude Opus 5.5: where it fits
Anthropic's September 22, 2026 update: Fable 5.1-level performance at 40% lower cost than Opus 5, with faster output and cheaper caching. Released September 22, 2026 by Anthropic, it is built for performs at roughly Claude Fable 5.1's level on most work, at 40% lower typical workload cost than Opus 5, anthropic reports it surpasses Fable 5.1 on agentic coding, knowledge work, computer use, visual chart recognition, and multidisciplinary reasoning, pricing cut to $4/$20 per million tokens (20% below Opus 5's $5/$25), cache reads down 60% to $0.20/MTok, and output speed increased over 30% versus Opus 5.
Its trade-offs are real: not a reasoning-ceiling upgrade over Fable 5.1 — pitched as matching its performance at lower cost, not beating it outright, like Opus 5, the headline 1M-token context is not uniformly available across every platform and plan — some API paths default to a smaller window, and first model in the 5.5 line; Anthropic has signaled Sonnet 5.5 and Haiku 5.5 are still weeks away, so the lower tiers of the family aren't out yet. At $4 in / $20 out per million tokens, it sits in the mid price band.
Muse Wonder 1.0: where it fits
Meta Superintelligence Labs' October 12, 2026 debut frontier model — distinct from Muse Spark, scoring 52 on the independent Artificial Analysis Index with a 1M-token, four-modality context window. Released October 12, 2026 by Meta, it is built for meta Superintelligence Labs' first frontier-class reasoning model — a new line distinct from the agentic-coding-focused Muse Spark family, artificial Analysis Intelligence Index score of 52 (a gated 'Wonder Full' subscription variant scores 56, tied with Claude Sonnet 5.5, behind only Opus 5.5 at 58), 78.8% on DeepSWE v1.1 long-horizon coding, ahead of both Claude Opus 5.5 (74.2%) and GPT-6 Astra (74.1%), and accepts text, image, video, audio, and PDF input against a 1,048,576-token context window.
Its trade-offs: the stronger 'Wonder Full' variant is gated behind $50/$200-per-month Muse Code subscriptions, with no public API or independently verifiable pricing, meta's full safety report had not been published as of launch, first release in a brand-new model family — no track record yet next to Meta's more established Muse Spark line, and benchmark comparisons against Opus 5.5 and GPT-6 Astra are Meta's own self-reported figures. At $4 in / $20 out per million tokens, it sits in the mid price band.
The bottom line for this matchup
Claude Opus 5.5 and Muse Wonder 1.0 overlap enough that the right pick depends on your specific job. Muse Wonder 1.0 holds the larger context; and each leads in its own area — Claude Opus 5.5 for performs at roughly claude fable 5.1's level on most work, at 40% lower typical workload cost than opus 5, Muse Wonder 1.0 for meta superintelligence labs' first frontier-class reasoning model — a new line distinct from the agentic-coding-focused muse spark family. Rather than crowning one, run the same hard task through both once and let the results decide.
Want both Claude Opus 5.5 and Muse Wonder 1.0 without two subscriptions? LumiChats gives you these plus 40+ models under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day) — draft with one, cross-check with the other.
See pricingFrequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 5.5 or Muse Wonder 1.0 better for coding?
Public SWE-Bench figures are not available for either model, so the honest test is your own repository — run an identical real bug through both. By design, Claude Opus 5.5 leans toward performs at roughly claude fable 5.1's level on most work, at 40% lower typical workload cost than opus 5 while Muse Wonder 1.0 leans toward meta superintelligence labs' first frontier-class reasoning model — a new line distinct from the agentic-coding-focused muse spark family, and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 5.5 or Muse Wonder 1.0?
They are priced almost identically, so cost will not decide between them.
Which has the bigger context window?
Effectively neither — 1M tokens vs 1M tokens is a difference of a few percent. Remember advertised ≠ usable: recall typically degrades before the ceiling.
Can I use both Claude Opus 5.5 and Muse Wonder 1.0 together?
Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you Claude Opus 5.5, Muse Wonder 1.0 and 40+ others under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day), so you can draft with one and cross-check with the other instead of buying two subscriptions.
Which is newer, Claude Opus 5.5 or Muse Wonder 1.0?
Muse Wonder 1.0 — released October 12, 2026, about 20 days after Claude Opus 5.5.
Related comparisons
Specifications and benchmarks reflect publicly reported figures as of June 2026 and may change as providers release updates. Always verify on your own workload.