Claude Opus 5.5 vs Muse Wonder
Compare Claude Opus 5.5 and Muse Wonder side-by-side.
Compare Claude Opus 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 Opus 5.5 vs Muse Wonder on Vision Evals
Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher on 4 of the five Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Object Detection, where Claude Opus 5.5 leads 74.5% to 65.1%.
Overall, Claude Opus 5.5 averages 82.0% (#2 of 62) against 78.8% (#8 of 62) for Muse Wonder.
Claude Opus 5.5 is both cheaper ($0.015 vs $0.034 per sample) and faster (7.6s vs 11.7s per sample).
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Muse Wonder Comparison Table
Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 13, 2026
| Property | Claude Opus 5.5 | Muse Wonder |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | Meta |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Sep 2026 | Oct 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | Unknown | undisclosed |
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Commercial use | commercial use per vendor terms | commercial use per vendor terms |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $4.00 | $4.00 |
| Output $/1M | $20.00 | $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 | 82.0% | 78.8% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.015 | $0.034 |
| Avg speed / sample | 7.63s | 11.68s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 74.5% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.0 to 75.0 | 65.1% ±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.5 to 66.0 |
| Object Detection (high) | 76.0% ±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.7 to 77.0 | 66.0% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.2 to 66.5 |
| Counting (low) | 80.6% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 82.4 | 76.6% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.7 to 78.4 |
| Counting (high) | 82.0% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.7 to 83.8 | 79.7% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 81.1 |
| Identification (low) | 93.8% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 93.8 | 92.7% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8 |
| Identification (high) | 95.8% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 96.9 | 90.6% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 90.6 |
| OCR (low) | 78.3% | 74.3% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | 79.9% | 76.0% |
| by category |
|
|
| Reasoning (low) | 83.0% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.1 to 84.1 | 85.2% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.8 to 85.4 |
| Reasoning (high) | 85.9% ±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.8 to 88.1 | 83.4% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.8 to 84.1 |
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Muse Wonder: Overview
Claude Opus 5.5 is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from Anthropic and the first entry in the Claude 5.5 family. It accepts interleaved text and image input and returns text, with a one million token context window and up to 128,000 output tokens per response. Adaptive thinking is always enabled on this model and cannot be disabled; thinking depth is instead governed by an effort parameter with five levels, where medium is the default, a change from the high default used by Claude Opus 5 and earlier Opus models. Anthropic reports a knowledge cutoff of June 2026.
On the visual side, Anthropic characterizes Opus 5.5 as its strongest Opus release for vision and computer use, describing improved reading of dense documents, charts, screenshots, and diagrams for document extraction and visual analysis tasks. Published results include 89.0% on Chartography with tools and 81.8% on OSWorld 2.0 under partial credit scoring, alongside 48.7% under strict scoring reported in the system card. The accompanying system card states that Opus 5.5 scored higher than Opus 5 on every evaluation in its capability summary, with the largest gains concentrated in agentic coding, visual reasoning, computer use, and long-horizon knowledge work. The model ships with safety classifiers covering biology and cybersecurity that can route blocked requests to earlier Claude models.
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, Claude Opus 5.5 performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the five vision tasks and averages 82.0% (#2 of 62) against 78.8% (#8 of 62) for Muse Wonder. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
Yes. On the Vision Evals Object Detection benchmark at low effort, Claude Opus 5.5 leads with 74.5% against 65.1%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Claude Opus 5.5 is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.015 per sample against $0.034. Claude Opus 5.5 is priced at $4.00 per 1M input tokens and $20.00 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 Opus 5.5 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 7.6s per inference against 11.7s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.