Model Comparison
Claude Fable 5 vs Muse Wonder
Claude Fable 5 (max effort, Opus 4.8 fallback) leads Muse Wonder (max) by 214 Elo, and their 95% ranges sit 113 Elo apart. Even Claude Fable 5's lowest-rated configuration, Claude Fable 5 (high), ranks above Muse Wonder (max). Among 80 models, each ranked by its best configuration, Claude Fable 5 is #6 and Muse Wonder is #16. Cost per script: $3.20 for Claude Fable 5 (max effort, Opus 4.8 fallback) and $0.309 for Muse Wonder (max).
Last updated , from board data generated at 20:08 UTC.
Picks and Verdict
PickClaude Fable 5
Claude Fable 5 (high)
Pick Claude Fable 5 (high) as the setting worth paying for, since at $1.34 a script it ranks above Muse Wonder's best with separate ranges, and max effort's $3.20 buys a gain the board can't separate.
PickMuse Wonder
Muse Wonder (max)
Pick Muse Wonder (max) for quick drafts that need a strong opening, since it leads both Fable settings on Hook Strength and substance at $0.309 a script in 2.0 minutes.
Claude Fable 5 wins this one at both settings, and the cheaper one is the setting I'd pay for. With each of the 80 models ranked by its best setting, Fable is the #6 model and Muse Wonder the #16 model. Claude Fable 5 (max effort, Opus 4.8 fallback) leads Muse Wonder (max) by 214 Elo with separate 95% ranges, but it costs $3.20 a script, takes over twelve minutes, and the board can't separate it from Claude Fable 5 (high). That high setting still sits 134 Elo above Muse's best, with ranges that don't overlap, and wins eight of the ten scripts. It costs $1.34, about 4.3 times Muse's $0.309, and takes 4.9 minutes. Fable's lead comes from length, tone and YouTube structure. Muse opens stronger, four and a half points up on Hook Strength against Fable at high, and carries three more points of substance. Only Muse's max setting competes here: high and adaptive drop 341 and 401 Elo below it, mostly on length. I'd run Fable at high for the scripts I record and Muse at max for quick drafts in about two minutes.
Disclosure: Claude Fable 5 comes from the same lab as one of the four judges, Claude Opus 5.5. The other three sit outside its lab, so it is never scored by its own lab alone (how the panel works). The judge analysis measures how much each judge favors its own lab.
How to Read the Writing Score, Writing Elo and 95% Ranges
Writing Score and Writing Elo. The Writing Score (0 to 100) is the weighted average of the nine metric scores: seven from the judges, Length Adherence from code and the Slop Score half from each. The Writing Elo is a rating from pairwise comparisons: on each script, each configuration's average across its drafts is compared with every other configuration's, and gaps within the draft-to-draft variation count as draws. Elo rewards winning often, so the two can put configurations in a different order.
Elo ranges. Each 95% range shows how far a configuration's Elo could move if the drafts had come out slightly differently. It comes from resampling every configuration's recorded draft scores on each reference script and ranking again. Comparing two separate ranges does not test the Elo gap between them: ranges far apart are strong evidence for the order, and overlapping ranges do not mean a tie. The reference scripts stay fixed, so the ranges say nothing about new scripts. The methodology page has the full description.
All Thinking Levels of Both Models
Every ranked configuration of Claude Fable 5 and Muse Wonder, scored on the same 10 scripts by the same four judges.
- Each row is one configuration: the model at one thinking level. The dot is its Writing Elo, a rating from pairwise comparisons of the scores on each script, and the bar is its 95% range: how far that Elo could move if the drafts had come out slightly differently.
- When two bars overlap, the board cannot order those two configurations. Bars far apart are strong evidence for the order.
- The table under the chart lists the same configurations in the same order and adds the Writing Score (the 0 to 100 consensus of the judges and code), cost, time and configuration rank (the place among all configurations on the board).
Shaded rows are the configurations chosen for the metric comparison below.
| Configuration | Writing Elo | 95% Range | Writing Score | Cost / Script | Time / Script | Reasoning Tokens | Configuration Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Fable 5 (max effort, Opus 4.8 fallback) | 2219 | 2157 to 2279 | 82.9 | $3.20 | 12.5 min | N/A | #13 |
| Claude Fable 5 (high) | 2139 | 2077 to 2184 | 81.9 | $1.34 | 4.9 min | N/A | #22 |
| Muse Wonder (max) | 2005 | 1959 to 2044 | 80.6 | $0.309 | 2.0 min | 9,601 | #31 |
| Muse Wonder (high) | 1664 | 1600 to 1724 | 76.7 | $0.149 | 0.9 min | 1,385 | #58 |
| Muse Wonder (adaptive) | 1604 | 1550 to 1661 | 76.2 | $0.139 | 0.8 min | 766 | #70 |
Cost is one script at the API list price of the route used, uncached and without judging. Time is the average for one accepted script, retries included. N/A under Reasoning Tokens means the board has no separate reasoning count for that route.
Computed Findings Across Thinking Levels
Each finding is computed from the configurations above. Where two 95% ranges overlap, the board cannot order those two configurations.
- Best Configurations Head to Head. Claude Fable 5 (max effort, Opus 4.8 fallback) leads Muse Wonder (max) by 214 Elo, and their 95% ranges do not overlap (2157 to 2279 against 1959 to 2044), which is strong evidence for that order.
- Every Claude Fable 5 Configuration Ranks Higher. Both Claude Fable 5 configurations rank above all three Muse Wonder configurations: the lowest-rated, Claude Fable 5 (high) at Elo 2139, still beats Muse Wonder (max) at Elo 2005. Their 95% ranges do not overlap.
- Lowest Thinking Levels Head to Head. At their lowest thinking levels, Claude Fable 5 (high) at Elo 2139 and $1.34 per script leads Muse Wonder (high) at Elo 1664 and $0.149 per script by 475 Elo. Their 95% ranges do not overlap.
- Same Level Name, Side by Side. Claude Fable 5 has the higher Writing Elo at every level name both models use: high and max. The 95% ranges do not overlap at any of them. Level names come from each provider, so the same name does not promise the same reasoning budget.
- Cheapest Configuration Overlapping the Top One. Claude Fable 5 (high), at $1.34 per script, is the cheapest configuration whose 95% range overlaps that of Claude Fable 5 (max effort, Opus 4.8 fallback), at $3.20 per script: 2077 to 2184 against 2157 to 2279, so the board cannot separate them. Claude Fable 5 (max effort, Opus 4.8 fallback) costs about 2.4 times as much per script.
- Cheapest Claude Fable 5 Configuration Above Muse Wonder's Best. The cheapest Claude Fable 5 configuration with a higher Writing Elo than Muse Wonder (max), at Elo 2005 and $0.309 per script, is Claude Fable 5 (high), at Elo 2139 and $1.34 per script. It costs about 4.3 times as much per script.
- Lowest to Highest Thinking Level. Claude Fable 5 moves +80 Elo from high to max effort, at about 2.4 times the cost per script. Muse Wonder moves +341 Elo from high to max, at about 2.1 times the cost per script.
Writing Elo at Each Shared Level Name
| Level | Claude Fable 5 | Muse Wonder | Gap | 95% Ranges |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| high | 2139 | 1664 | +475 | Separate |
| max | 2219 | 2005 | +214 | Separate |
Gap is Claude Fable 5 minus Muse Wonder at the same level name, using each model's highest-rated configuration at that level.
Two Chosen Configurations Compared
Pick one configuration of each model to compare their metric scores, consistency across drafts and per-script scores. Each menu starts on the model's best configuration.
Scores by Metric
Claude Fable 5 (max effort, Opus 4.8 fallback) scores higher on seven of the nine metrics and Muse Wonder (max) on two. Weighted by each metric's share of the Writing Score, Length Adherence does the most to put Claude Fable 5 (max effort, Opus 4.8 fallback) ahead, with a 12.2-point lead on that metric. The weight beside each metric is its share of the Writing Score.
Consistency Across Drafts
| Claude Fable 5 (max effort, Opus 4.8 fallback) | Muse Wonder (max) | |
|---|---|---|
| Score spread across drafts (±) | 1.96 | 1.91 |
| Lowest script score | 81.2 Script 8 | 78.2 Script 10 |
| Highest script score | 86.4 Script 7 | 82.2 Script 5 |
| Range across scripts | 5.2 | 4.0 |
Spread is how much the Writing Score moves between a configuration's drafts, and lower is steadier. Green marks the better number in each row.
Scores by Script
Writing Score on each reference script. Gap is Claude Fable 5 (max effort, Opus 4.8 fallback) minus Muse Wonder (max), and the higher score is in bold.
| Script | Claude Fable 5 (max effort, Opus 4.8 fallback) | Muse Wonder (max) | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Script 1 opinion / warning explainer | 83.1 | 81.3 | +1.8 |
| Script 2 news-analysis / skeptical explainer | 83.7 | 81.7 | +2.0 |
| Script 3 personal roadmap / opinion | 81.6 | 81.3 | +0.3 |
| Script 4 short explainer | 81.6 | 79.5 | +2.1 |
| Script 5 news-analysis / opinion explainer | 82.5 | 82.2 | +0.3 |
| Script 6 founder announcement / personal origin story | 82.9 | 81.3 | +1.6 |
| Script 7 personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study | 86.4 | 78.5 | +7.9 |
| Script 8 product release announcement / personal observation | 81.2 | 82.1 | -0.9 |
| Script 9 career guide / hiring analysis | 83.2 | 79.9 | +3.3 |
| Script 10 engineering process walkthrough / presentation adaptation | 82.8 | 78.2 | +4.6 |
Scorecards and Thinking Pages
Each configuration name in the table above opens its own scorecard.
Compare With Another Model
Pick a second model. A pair with its own written match-up opens that page, and any other pair opens in the comparison tool.
Nearby Match-Ups by Best Writing Elo
Every configuration wrote five drafts for each of the same 10 briefs, from the same prompt. Generation was closed-book, with the prompt as the only source and no web search or other tools. Each judge scores every draft once: Claude Opus 5.5 at medium effort through the Claude Code subscription, GPT-6.1 Sol at medium reasoning through the Codex CLI, GLM 5.3 Flash through OpenRouter, and Jev 1.13, a typed judge from TypeSafe that answers each metric as a multiple-choice question. The channel's finished script is their reference for the voice, and it gets no score on the board itself.
← All comparisons