The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Claude Sonnet 5 vs Muse Wonder Full

Muse Wonder Full leads the LLM Stats Score 52.1 to 47.3.

Anthropic · Meta · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Muse Wonder Full leads the overall LLM Stats Score 52.1 to 47.3, ranking #13 overall.

In the 3 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Muse Wonder Full wins 2; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.

Choose Claude Sonnet 5

  • you want predictable pricing at $2.00/M input and $10.00/M output

Choose Muse Wonder Full

  • overall performance matters — it scores 52.1 and ranks #13 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes coding and agents — it leads those capability indexes
  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 2 of 3 exact shared results
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Oct 2026

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Claude Sonnet 5
Anthropic
Muse Wonder Full
Meta
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
47.3
#33
52.1
#13
Reasoning
46.8
#29
38.4
#71
Coding
34.6
#31
41.5
#8
Agents
29.9
#43
38.5
#8
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
1 of 3
2 of 3
Input price
$2.00 / M
— / M
Output price
$10.00 / M
— / M
Context window
1,000,000
—

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

2 shared
Index
Claude Sonnet 5
Muse Wonder Full
Vision
32.9#22
31.7#28
Multimodal
31.3#30
31.8#25
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

23 reported for Claude Sonnet 5 · 16 for Muse Wonder Full

3 shared

Claude Sonnet 5 outperforms in 1 benchmarks (GDP.pdf), while Muse Wonder Full is better at 2 benchmarks (DeepSWE 1.1, HealthBench Professional).

Muse Wonder Full shows notably better performance in the majority of benchmarks.

Wed Oct 14 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only Claude Sonnet 5 specifies input context (1,000,000 tokens). Only Claude Sonnet 5 specifies output context (64,000 tokens).

Anthropic
Claude Sonnet 5
Input1,000,000 tokens
Output64,000 tokens
Meta
Muse Wonder Full
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Wed Oct 14 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Both Claude Sonnet 5 and Muse Wonder Full support multimodal inputs.

They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.

Claude Sonnet 5

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Muse Wonder Full

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Both models are licensed under proprietary licenses.

Both models have usage restrictions defined by their respective organizations.

Claude Sonnet 5

Proprietary

Closed source

Muse Wonder Full

Proprietary

Closed source

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude Sonnet 5 was released on 2026-06-30, while Muse Wonder Full was released on 2026-10-12.

Muse Wonder Full is 3 months newer than Claude Sonnet 5.

Claude Sonnet 5

Jun 30, 2026

3 months ago

Muse Wonder Full

Oct 12, 2026

2 days ago

3mo newer

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.

Unable to compare the recency of their training data.

No cutoff dates available

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Claude Sonnet 5 and Muse Wonder Full side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Claude Sonnet 5
✓ Preferred
Muse Wonder Full
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Claude Sonnet 5 vs Muse Wonder Full.

Which is better, Claude Sonnet 5 or Muse Wonder Full?

Muse Wonder Full leads the LLM Stats Score 52.1 to 47.3. Claude Sonnet 5 is made by Anthropic and Muse Wonder Full is made by Meta. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits above.

How does Claude Sonnet 5 compare to Muse Wonder Full in benchmarks?

Claude Sonnet 5 scores CharXiv-R: 88.3%, ChartMuseum: 86.7%, SWE-Bench Verified: 85.2%, BrowseComp: 84.7%, GDP.pdf: 81.6%. Muse Wonder Full scores MemoryBench: 85.5%, DeepSWE 1.1: 79.0%, OSWorld 2.1 (partial): 78.4%, JobBench: 75.3%, HealthBench Professional: 62.3%.

What are the context window sizes for Claude Sonnet 5 and Muse Wonder Full?

Claude Sonnet 5 supports 1.0M tokens and Muse Wonder Full supports an unknown number of tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between Claude Sonnet 5 and Muse Wonder Full?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (47.3 vs 52.1). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Claude Sonnet 5 and Muse Wonder Full?

Claude Sonnet 5 is developed by Anthropic and Muse Wonder Full is developed by Meta.

Related comparisons