Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Muse Wonder
Compare Claude Haiku 5.5 and Muse Wonder side-by-side.
Compare Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Muse Wonder live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
These models don't share enough common tasks for a side-by-side demo. See the comparison table below for their capabilities.
Models in this comparison
Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Muse Wonder on Vision Evals
Muse Wonder scores higher on 4 of the five Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Reasoning, where Muse Wonder leads 85.2% to 68.9%.
Overall, Claude Haiku 5.5 averages 69.6% (#21 of 62) against 78.8% (#8 of 62) for Muse Wonder.
Claude Haiku 5.5 is both cheaper ($0.0006 vs $0.034 per sample) and faster (11.0s vs 11.7s per sample).
Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Muse Wonder Comparison Table
Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 13, 2026
| Property | Claude Haiku 5.5 | Muse Wonder |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | Meta |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Oct 2026 | Oct 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | undisclosed | undisclosed |
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Commercial use | commercial use per vendor terms | commercial use per vendor terms |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.100 | $4.00 |
| Output $/1M | $0.500 | $20.00 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Supported |
| Chart Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Classification | Demo | Supported |
| Document Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Image Tagging | Supported | Supported |
| Multi-Label Classification | Supported | Supported |
| Object Detection | Demo | Supported |
| OCR | Demo | Supported |
| Vision Language | Supported | Supported |
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Supported |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | Supported | Supported |
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | Supported | Supported |
| Multimodal Vision | Supported | Supported |
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 69.6% | 78.8% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0006 | $0.034 |
| Avg speed / sample | 11.01s | 11.68s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 65.8% ±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.1 to 66.2 | 65.1% ±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.5 to 66.0 |
| Object Detection (high) | 68.2% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.2 to 69.2 | 66.0% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.2 to 66.5 |
| Counting (low) | 68.9% ±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.9 to 74.3 | 76.6% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.7 to 78.4 |
| Counting (high) | 73.0% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.6 to 74.3 | 79.7% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 81.1 |
| Identification (low) | 83.3% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 87.5 | 92.7% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8 |
| Identification (high) | 86.5% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 87.5 | 90.6% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 90.6 |
| OCR (low) | 61.2% | 74.3% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | 65.3% | 76.0% |
| by category |
|
|
| Reasoning (low) | 68.9% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.9 to 70.9 | 85.2% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.8 to 85.4 |
| Reasoning (high) | 74.8% ±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 72.2 to 77.5 | 83.4% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.8 to 84.1 |
Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Muse Wonder: Overview
Claude Haiku 5.5 is a proprietary multimodal language model from Anthropic and the smallest member of the Claude 5.5 family, released on October 7, 2026 after Claude Opus 5.5 and Claude Sonnet 5.5. It accepts text and image input and returns text, with a 1M token context window and up to 128K output tokens per request. It is the first Haiku-class model with an adjustable effort parameter: adaptive thinking is on by default and the model decides how much to reason, steered by effort levels from low to max with medium as the default. Its training data cutoff is June 2026. Pricing starts at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.50 per million output tokens for prompts up to 100K tokens, which Anthropic reports is about 90% lower than Claude Haiku 4.5 for requests in that range.
Anthropic positions Haiku 5.5 for high-volume, latency-sensitive work such as classification, extraction, routing, summarization, and subagent tasks, and describes it as its fastest model to date at standard speed. On visual and agentic evaluations reported at launch, it scores 46.4% on Chartography, a chart reading benchmark, compared with 6.4% for Haiku 4.5 and 61.6% for Sonnet 5.5, and 72.4% on the offline subset of OSWorld 2.1, a screenshot driven computer use benchmark, compared with 15.7% for Haiku 4.5. It uses the same tokenizer as Claude Opus 4.7 and later models, so the same text counts as roughly 30% more tokens than on Haiku 4.5.
Muse Wonder is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from Meta, released on October 12, 2026 as the first step past the Muse Spark line on Meta's scaling ladder. It launched together with Muse Wonder Full, a larger configuration that is available only through Muse Code subscription plans, while Muse Wonder itself is served through the Meta Model API under the identifier muse-wonder-1.0. The model accepts text, images, video, audio, and PDF documents as input and returns text, with a context window of 1,048,576 tokens and graded reasoning effort settings. Meta trained both models at its Prometheus data center on larger base models than Muse Spark 1.3, and attributes their gains on unfamiliar tasks to post-training that transfers more effectively from a stronger base.
Meta positions Muse Wonder for long-running personal and professional agents: it plans multi-step work, delegates to sub-agents, calls tools in parallel, recovers from errors, and operates browsers and desktop or mobile applications. Two training objectives shape this behaviour. Active Memory carries goals, constraints, and earlier decisions across conversations and retrieves the details relevant to the current step, and Active Focus keeps the model trying alternative approaches when a task gets difficult while asking for clarification before important actions. Visual inputs such as screenshots, charts, and video feed the same reasoning loop, and the model emits bounding box coordinates for grounding queries. Meta's model card lists visual and spatial reasoning, especially 3D tasks, as a known limitation and recommends validating performance for applications that depend on precise spatial understanding.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Muse Wonder performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the five vision tasks and averages 78.8% (#8 of 62) against 69.6% (#21 of 62) for Claude Haiku 5.5. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
No. On the Vision Evals Reasoning benchmark at low effort, Muse Wonder leads with 85.2% against 68.9%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Claude Haiku 5.5 is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0006 per sample against $0.034. Claude Haiku 5.5 is priced at $0.10 per 1M input tokens and $0.50 per 1M output; Muse Wonder is priced at $4.00 per 1M input tokens and $20.00 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Claude Haiku 5.5 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 11.0s per inference against 11.7s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.