Claude Fable 5.2 vs Muse Ember
Claude Fable 5.2 leads the LLM Stats Score 61.1 to 45.9. Muse Ember is 80.0x cheaper per token.
Anthropic · Meta · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
Claude Fable 5.2 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 61.1 to 45.9, ranking #1 overall.
In the 3 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Claude Fable 5.2 wins 3; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.
On price, Muse Ember is roughly 80.0x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.
Muse Ember also accepts a larger context window (1,048,576 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.
Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.
Choose Claude Fable 5.2
- overall performance matters — it scores 61.1 and ranks #1 on LLM Stats
- your work emphasizes reasoning and coding — it leads those capability indexes
- you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 3 of 3 exact shared results
Choose Muse Ember
- cost matters — it's about 80.0x cheaper per token
- you process long inputs — it offers a 1,048,576 token context window
At a glance
The differences that matter most.
Capability indexes
Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks
Individual benchmarks
29 reported for Claude Fable 5.2 · 6 for Muse Ember
Claude Fable 5.2 outperforms in 3 benchmarks (OSWorld 2.1 (partial), OSWorld 2.1 (strict), Terminal-Bench 4.0), while Muse Ember is better at 0 benchmarks.
Claude Fable 5.2 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.
Human preference
Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores
Pricing Analysis
Price comparison per million tokens
For input processing, Claude Fable 5.2 ($8.00/1M tokens) is 80.0x more expensive than Muse Ember ($0.10/1M tokens).
For output processing, Claude Fable 5.2 ($40.00/1M tokens) is 80.0x more expensive than Muse Ember ($0.50/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Claude Fable 5.2 is more expensive than Muse Ember.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
Muse Ember accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Claude Fable 5.2's 1,000,000 tokens. Muse Ember can generate longer responses up to 524,288 tokens, while Claude Fable 5.2 is limited to 128,000 tokens.
Input capabilities
Documented input modalities across available providers
Both Claude Fable 5.2 and Muse Ember support multimodal inputs.
They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.
Claude Fable 5.2
Muse Ember
License
Usage and distribution terms
Both models are licensed under proprietary licenses.
Both models have usage restrictions defined by their respective organizations.
Proprietary
Closed source
Proprietary
Closed source
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
Both models were released on 2026-11-09.
They likely represent similar generations of model development.
Nov 9, 2026
3 days ago
Nov 9, 2026
3 days ago
Knowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
Claude Fable 5.2 has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2026-06-01, while Muse Ember's cutoff date is not specified.
We can confirm Claude Fable 5.2's training data extends to 2026-06-01, but cannot make a direct comparison without Muse Ember's cutoff date.
Jun 2026
—
Provider Availability
Claude Fable 5.2 is available from Anthropic. Muse Ember is available from Meta Model API.
Claude Fable 5.2
Muse Ember
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against Claude Fable 5.2 and Muse Ember side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about Claude Fable 5.2 vs Muse Ember.