Model Comparison
Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Muse Wonder
Claude Sonnet 5.5 (max effort) leads Muse Wonder (max) by 544 Elo, and their 95% ranges sit 455 Elo apart. Among 80 models, each ranked by its best configuration, Claude Sonnet 5.5 is #3 and Muse Wonder is #16. Cost per script: $1.38 for Claude Sonnet 5.5 (max effort) and $0.309 for Muse Wonder (max).
Last updated , from board data generated at 20:08 UTC.
Picks and Verdict
Ranks in the picks and verdict are configuration ranks: each setting's place among all 132 configurations. The cards above give each model's rank.
PickClaude Sonnet 5.5
Claude Sonnet 5.5 (xhigh)
Pick Claude Sonnet 5.5 (xhigh) over Muse Wonder (max), since it costs less at $0.302 a script and ranks 322 Elo higher with separate ranges.
PickMuse Wonder
Muse Wonder (max)
Pick Muse Wonder (max) over Sonnet at high when substance and visual cues count most, since the board can't separate the two and Muse leads it by 2.3 points on substance and 3.1 on visual cues.
Claude Sonnet 5.5 (xhigh) costs less than Muse Wonder (max), $0.302 a script against $0.309, and sits 322 Elo higher with 95% ranges that don't overlap. Claude Sonnet 5.5 (max effort) stretches the lead to 544 Elo at $1.38 and 14.3 minutes a script, and that best setting makes Sonnet the #3 model of 80, with Muse Wonder the #16 model. The middle is closer. Claude Sonnet 5.5 (high) is #27 on the board and Muse at max is #31, 26 Elo apart with overlapping ranges, so the board can't separate them, and Sonnet's version costs under a third as much and takes about a minute. Below that the order flips: Muse at max beats Sonnet at medium and low with separate ranges. Muse's own lower settings don't hold up, though. Sonnet at low beats Muse at high and adaptive with separate ranges, for less money, and Muse gains 341 Elo from high to max, mostly by landing the length. Muse does open a little stronger than Sonnet's top two settings. I'd run Sonnet at xhigh most days.
Disclosure: Claude Sonnet 5.5 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 Sonnet 5.5 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 Sonnet 5.5 (max effort) | 2549 | 2499 to 2603 | 84.6 | $1.38 | 14.3 min | N/A | #4 |
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 (xhigh) | 2327 | 2282 to 2368 | 83.2 | $0.302 | 3.1 min | N/A | #10 |
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 (high) | 2031 | 1987 to 2078 | 81.0 | $0.092 | 1.0 min | N/A | #27 |
| Muse Wonder (max) | 2005 | 1959 to 2044 | 80.6 | $0.309 | 2.0 min | 9,601 | #31 |
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 (medium) | 1853 | 1813 to 1896 | 79.4 | $0.065 | 0.6 min | N/A | #46 |
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 (low) | 1806 | 1763 to 1847 | 78.9 | $0.061 | 0.7 min | N/A | #51 |
| 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 Sonnet 5.5 (max effort) leads Muse Wonder (max) by 544 Elo, and their 95% ranges do not overlap (2499 to 2603 against 1959 to 2044), which is strong evidence for that order.
- Lowest Thinking Levels Head to Head. At their lowest thinking levels, Claude Sonnet 5.5 (low) at Elo 1806 and $0.061 per script leads Muse Wonder (high) at Elo 1664 and $0.149 per script by 142 Elo. Their 95% ranges do not overlap.
- Same Level Name, Side by Side. Claude Sonnet 5.5 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 Claude Sonnet 5.5 Configuration Above Muse Wonder's Best. The cheapest Claude Sonnet 5.5 configuration with a higher Writing Elo than Muse Wonder (max), at Elo 2005 and $0.309 per script, is Claude Sonnet 5.5 (high), at Elo 2031 and $0.092 per script. Their 95% ranges overlap, so the board cannot separate them. It costs less than the configuration it beats.
- Lowest to Highest Thinking Level. Claude Sonnet 5.5 moves +743 Elo from low to max effort, at about 23 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 Sonnet 5.5 | Muse Wonder | Gap | 95% Ranges |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| high | 2031 | 1664 | +367 | Separate |
| max | 2549 | 2005 | +544 | Separate |
Gap is Claude Sonnet 5.5 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 Sonnet 5.5 (max effort) scores higher on eight of the nine metrics and Muse Wonder (max) on one. Weighted by each metric's share of the Writing Score, Length Adherence does the most to put Claude Sonnet 5.5 (max effort) ahead, with a 16.3-point lead on that metric. The weight beside each metric is its share of the Writing Score.
Consistency Across Drafts
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 (max effort) | Muse Wonder (max) | |
|---|---|---|
| Score spread across drafts (±) | 1.22 | 1.91 |
| Lowest script score | 83.0 Script 10 | 78.2 Script 10 |
| Highest script score | 86.7 Script 9 | 82.2 Script 5 |
| Range across scripts | 3.7 | 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 Sonnet 5.5 (max effort) minus Muse Wonder (max), and the higher score is in bold.
| Script | Claude Sonnet 5.5 (max effort) | Muse Wonder (max) | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Script 1 opinion / warning explainer | 84.2 | 81.3 | +2.9 |
| Script 2 news-analysis / skeptical explainer | 84.8 | 81.7 | +3.1 |
| Script 3 personal roadmap / opinion | 84.0 | 81.3 | +2.7 |
| Script 4 short explainer | 85.0 | 79.5 | +5.5 |
| Script 5 news-analysis / opinion explainer | 84.8 | 82.2 | +2.6 |
| Script 6 founder announcement / personal origin story | 84.6 | 81.3 | +3.3 |
| Script 7 personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study | 85.0 | 78.5 | +6.5 |
| Script 8 product release announcement / personal observation | 83.9 | 82.1 | +1.8 |
| Script 9 career guide / hiring analysis | 86.7 | 79.9 | +6.8 |
| Script 10 engineering process walkthrough / presentation adaptation | 83.0 | 78.2 | +4.8 |
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