Model Comparison
Muse Wonder vs Claude Haiku 5.5
Too close to call: the best configurations, Muse Wonder (max) and Claude Haiku 5.5 (max effort), are 10 Elo apart, and their 95% ranges overlap. Among 80 models, each ranked by its best configuration, Muse Wonder is #16 and Claude Haiku 5.5 is #17. Cost per script: $0.309 for Muse Wonder (max) and $0.103 for Claude Haiku 5.5 (max effort).
Last updated , from board data generated at 20:08 UTC.
Picks and Verdict
PickMuse Wonder
Muse Wonder (max)
Pick Muse Wonder (max) when you want a top draft in 2.0 minutes, since the board can't separate it from Haiku's max effort, which takes 12.6.
PickClaude Haiku 5.5
Claude Haiku 5.5 (xhigh)
Pick Claude Haiku 5.5 (xhigh) for drafts in volume at $0.029 a script, since it ranks 254 Elo above Muse Wonder (high) for about a fifth of the price.
The board can't split these two at the top, so price and time decide it. Muse Wonder (max) sits 10 Elo above Claude Haiku 5.5 (max effort), with overlapping 95% ranges, the #16 model of 80 against the #17 model. Muse costs about three times as much, $0.309 against $0.103, but it's done in 2.0 minutes where Haiku takes 12.6. Muse has the better hook by 3.6 points and leads continuity and YouTube structure by more than two each, while Haiku lands the length 14.8 points better. One step down, Muse's max still clears Claude Haiku 5.5 (xhigh) by 87 Elo with separate ranges, but xhigh costs $0.029, under a tenth as much, and sits 254 Elo above Muse Wonder (high). At high, the board can't separate the two, though Haiku sits 53 Elo up at $0.012 against $0.149. Muse at adaptive, where the model picks its own level, can't be separated from Haiku at medium, which costs about a twentieth as much. Only Haiku at low falls clearly below Muse at high. I'd run Haiku at xhigh for drafts, and Muse at max when I can't wait 12.6 minutes.
Disclosure: Claude Haiku 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 Muse Wonder and Claude Haiku 5.5, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Muse Wonder (max) | 2005 | 1959 to 2044 | 80.6 | $0.309 | 2.0 min | 9,601 | #31 |
| Claude Haiku 5.5 (max effort) | 1995 | 1960 to 2032 | 80.8 | $0.103 | 12.6 min | N/A | #33 |
| Claude Haiku 5.5 (xhigh) | 1918 | 1880 to 1957 | 80.0 | $0.029 | 3.6 min | N/A | #42 |
| Claude Haiku 5.5 (high) | 1717 | 1681 to 1762 | 78.0 | $0.012 | 1.5 min | N/A | #54 |
| Muse Wonder (high) | 1664 | 1600 to 1724 | 76.7 | $0.149 | 0.9 min | 1,385 | #58 |
| Claude Haiku 5.5 (medium) | 1611 | 1561 to 1653 | 76.7 | $0.0067 | 0.8 min | N/A | #67 |
| Muse Wonder (adaptive) | 1604 | 1550 to 1661 | 76.2 | $0.139 | 0.8 min | 766 | #70 |
| Claude Haiku 5.5 (low) | 1503 | 1458 to 1546 | 75.2 | $0.0045 | 0.5 min | N/A | #78 |
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. Muse Wonder (max) at Elo 2005 (range 1959 to 2044) and Claude Haiku 5.5 (max effort) at Elo 1995 (range 1960 to 2032) have overlapping 95% ranges, so the board cannot separate the two best configurations.
- Lowest Thinking Levels Head to Head. At their lowest thinking levels, Muse Wonder (high) at Elo 1664 and $0.149 per script leads Claude Haiku 5.5 (low) at Elo 1503 and $0.0045 per script by 161 Elo. Their 95% ranges do not overlap.
- Same Level Name, Side by Side. Across the level names both models use, Muse Wonder leads at max; Claude Haiku 5.5 leads at high. The 95% ranges overlap at every one 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 Haiku 5.5 (max effort), at $0.103 per script, is the cheapest configuration whose 95% range overlaps that of Muse Wonder (max), at $0.309 per script: 1960 to 2032 against 1959 to 2044, so the board cannot separate them. Muse Wonder (max) costs about 3 times as much per script.
- Cheapest Muse Wonder Configuration Above Claude Haiku 5.5's Best. The cheapest Muse Wonder configuration with a higher Writing Elo than Claude Haiku 5.5 (max effort), at Elo 1995 and $0.103 per script, is Muse Wonder (max), at Elo 2005 and $0.309 per script. Their 95% ranges overlap, so the board cannot separate them. It costs about 3 times as much per script.
- Lowest to Highest Thinking Level. Muse Wonder moves +341 Elo from high to max, at about 2.1 times the cost per script. Claude Haiku 5.5 moves +492 Elo from low to max effort, at about 23 times the cost per script.
Writing Elo at Each Shared Level Name
| Level | Muse Wonder | Claude Haiku 5.5 | Gap | 95% Ranges |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| high | 1664 | 1717 | -53 | Overlap |
| max | 2005 | 1995 | +10 | Overlap |
Gap is Muse Wonder minus Claude Haiku 5.5 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
Muse Wonder (max) scores higher on five of the nine metrics and Claude Haiku 5.5 (max effort) on four. Weighted by each metric's share of the Writing Score, Length Adherence does the most to put Claude Haiku 5.5 (max effort) ahead, with a 14.8-point lead on that metric. The weight beside each metric is its share of the Writing Score.
Consistency Across Drafts
| Muse Wonder (max) | Claude Haiku 5.5 (max effort) | |
|---|---|---|
| Score spread across drafts (±) | 1.91 | 1.55 |
| Lowest script score | 78.2 Script 10 | 78.2 Script 10 |
| Highest script score | 82.2 Script 5 | 82.6 Script 4 |
| Range across scripts | 4.0 | 4.4 |
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 Muse Wonder (max) minus Claude Haiku 5.5 (max effort), and the higher score is in bold.
| Script | Muse Wonder (max) | Claude Haiku 5.5 (max effort) | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Script 1 opinion / warning explainer | 81.3 | 80.3 | +1.0 |
| Script 2 news-analysis / skeptical explainer | 81.7 | 80.7 | +1.0 |
| Script 3 personal roadmap / opinion | 81.3 | 80.8 | +0.5 |
| Script 4 short explainer | 79.5 | 82.6 | -3.1 |
| Script 5 news-analysis / opinion explainer | 82.2 | 81.7 | +0.5 |
| Script 6 founder announcement / personal origin story | 81.3 | 81.1 | +0.2 |
| Script 7 personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study | 78.5 | 80.0 | -1.5 |
| Script 8 product release announcement / personal observation | 82.1 | 81.3 | +0.8 |
| Script 9 career guide / hiring analysis | 79.9 | 81.5 | -1.6 |
| Script 10 engineering process walkthrough / presentation adaptation | 78.2 | 78.2 | 0.0 |
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