Model Comparison
Claude Opus 4.8 vs Muse Wonder
Too close to call: the best configurations, Claude Opus 4.8 (max effort) and Muse Wonder (max), have the same Writing Elo, 2005. Among 80 models, each ranked by its best configuration, Claude Opus 4.8 is #15 and Muse Wonder is #16. Cost per script: $1.23 for Claude Opus 4.8 (max effort) and $0.309 for Muse Wonder (max).
Last updated , from board data generated at 20:08 UTC.
Picks and Verdict
PickClaude Opus 4.8
Claude Opus 4.8 (high)
Pick Claude Opus 4.8 (high) for cheaper drafts that still hold the length, at $0.193 and 1.4 minutes, 188 Elo above Muse Wonder (high).
PickMuse Wonder
Muse Wonder (max)
Pick Muse Wonder (max) over Opus's max effort, since the board can't separate the two and Muse costs $0.309 and 2.0 minutes against $1.23 and 9.8.
At max the board can't separate them, and Muse Wonder gets there for a quarter of the price. Claude Opus 4.8 (max effort) and Muse Wonder (max) share the same Writing Elo, 2005, with overlapping 95% ranges, the #15 model of 80 against the #16 model. Opus costs $1.23 a script against $0.309 for Muse and finishes in 9.8 minutes against 2.0. Tone and craft are level. Muse leads substance by 4.8 points, and Opus lands the length 12.1 points better. At high, Opus pulls clear: Claude Opus 4.8 (high) leads Muse Wonder (high) by 188 Elo with separate ranges, and the gap is mostly Length Adherence, 41.1 for Muse against 88.5. On tone, substance, continuity and YouTube structure, Muse at high still scores higher. Muse at adaptive, with no level requested, trails Opus at high by 248 Elo. Opus gains 153 Elo from high to max effort for about 6.4 times the price, Muse 341 for about 2.1 times. Opus at high, at $0.193 and 1.4 minutes, sits 153 Elo under Muse's best with separate ranges. For a script I'm recording, I'd pay $0.309 for Muse at max before $1.23 for Opus.
Disclosure: Claude Opus 4.8 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 Opus 4.8 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 Opus 4.8 (max effort) | 2005 | 1969 to 2046 | 80.7 | $1.23 | 9.8 min | N/A | #30 |
| Muse Wonder (max) | 2005 | 1959 to 2044 | 80.6 | $0.309 | 2.0 min | 9,601 | #31 |
| Claude Opus 4.8 (high) | 1852 | 1807 to 1893 | 79.3 | $0.193 | 1.4 min | N/A | #47 |
| 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 Opus 4.8 (max effort) and Muse Wonder (max) have the same Writing Elo, 2005. Their 95% ranges overlap, so the board cannot separate the two best configurations.
- Lowest Thinking Levels Head to Head. At their lowest thinking levels, Claude Opus 4.8 (high) at Elo 1852 and $0.193 per script leads Muse Wonder (high) at Elo 1664 and $0.149 per script by 188 Elo. Their 95% ranges do not overlap.
- Same Level Name, Side by Side. Across the level names both models use, Claude Opus 4.8 leads at high; they tie at max. The 95% ranges do not overlap at high. Level names come from each provider, so the same name does not promise the same reasoning budget.
- Cheapest Configuration Overlapping the Top One. Muse Wonder (max), at $0.309 per script, is the cheapest configuration whose 95% range overlaps that of Claude Opus 4.8 (max effort), at $1.23 per script: 1959 to 2044 against 1969 to 2046, so the board cannot separate them. Claude Opus 4.8 (max effort) costs about 4 times as much per script.
- Lowest to Highest Thinking Level. Claude Opus 4.8 moves +153 Elo from high to max effort, at about 6.4 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 Opus 4.8 | Muse Wonder | Gap | 95% Ranges |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| high | 1852 | 1664 | +188 | Separate |
| max | 2005 | 2005 | +0 | Overlap |
Gap is Claude Opus 4.8 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 Opus 4.8 (max effort) scores higher on four of the nine metrics and Muse Wonder (max) on four, with one tie. Weighted by each metric's share of the Writing Score, Length Adherence does the most to put Claude Opus 4.8 (max effort) ahead, with a 12.1-point lead on that metric. The weight beside each metric is its share of the Writing Score.
Consistency Across Drafts
| Claude Opus 4.8 (max effort) | Muse Wonder (max) | |
|---|---|---|
| Score spread across drafts (±) | 2.02 | 1.91 |
| Lowest script score | 77.5 Script 4 | 78.2 Script 10 |
| Highest script score | 83.1 Script 6 | 82.2 Script 5 |
| Range across scripts | 5.6 | 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 Opus 4.8 (max effort) minus Muse Wonder (max), and the higher score is in bold.
| Script | Claude Opus 4.8 (max effort) | Muse Wonder (max) | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Script 1 opinion / warning explainer | 80.2 | 81.3 | -1.1 |
| Script 2 news-analysis / skeptical explainer | 80.6 | 81.7 | -1.1 |
| Script 3 personal roadmap / opinion | 79.3 | 81.3 | -2.0 |
| Script 4 short explainer | 77.5 | 79.5 | -2.0 |
| Script 5 news-analysis / opinion explainer | 80.3 | 82.2 | -1.9 |
| Script 6 founder announcement / personal origin story | 83.1 | 81.3 | +1.8 |
| Script 7 personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study | 82.5 | 78.5 | +4.0 |
| Script 8 product release announcement / personal observation | 82.5 | 82.1 | +0.4 |
| Script 9 career guide / hiring analysis | 82.0 | 79.9 | +2.1 |
| Script 10 engineering process walkthrough / presentation adaptation | 78.9 | 78.2 | +0.7 |
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