Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Muse Ember
Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads the LLM Stats Score 57.0 to 45.9. Muse Ember is 20.0x cheaper per token.
Anthropic · Meta · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 57.0 to 45.9, ranking #5 overall.
In the 3 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Claude Sonnet 5.5 wins 3; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.
On price, Muse Ember is roughly 20.0x 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 Sonnet 5.5
- overall performance matters — it scores 57.0 and ranks #5 on LLM Stats
- your work emphasizes coding and agents — 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 20.0x cheaper per token
- you process long inputs — it offers a 1,048,576 token context window
- you want the most recent training data — it shipped Nov 2026
At a glance
The differences that matter most.
Capability indexes
Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks
Individual benchmarks
47 reported for Claude Sonnet 5.5 · 6 for Muse Ember
Claude Sonnet 5.5 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 Sonnet 5.5 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 Sonnet 5.5 ($2.00/1M tokens) is 20.0x more expensive than Muse Ember ($0.10/1M tokens).
For output processing, Claude Sonnet 5.5 ($10.00/1M tokens) is 20.0x more expensive than Muse Ember ($0.50/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Claude Sonnet 5.5 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 Sonnet 5.5's 1,000,000 tokens. Muse Ember can generate longer responses up to 524,288 tokens, while Claude Sonnet 5.5 is limited to 128,000 tokens.
Input capabilities
Documented input modalities across available providers
Both Claude Sonnet 5.5 and Muse Ember support multimodal inputs.
They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.
Claude Sonnet 5.5
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
Claude Sonnet 5.5 was released on 2026-09-28, while Muse Ember was released on 2026-11-09.
Muse Ember is 1 month newer than Claude Sonnet 5.5.
Sep 28, 2026
1 months ago
Nov 9, 2026
3 days ago
1mo newerKnowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
Claude Sonnet 5.5 has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2026-06-01, while Muse Ember's cutoff date is not specified.
We can confirm Claude Sonnet 5.5'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 Sonnet 5.5 is available from Anthropic. Muse Ember is available from Meta Model API.
Claude Sonnet 5.5
Muse Ember
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against Claude Sonnet 5.5 and Muse Ember side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Muse Ember.