Model Comparison
Muse Wonder vs Claude Opus 4.8
Too close to call: the best configurations, Muse Wonder (max) and Claude Opus 4.8 (max effort), are 9 Elo apart, and their 95% ranges overlap. Among 81 models, each ranked by its best configuration, Muse Wonder is #16 and Claude Opus 4.8 is #18. Cost per script: $0.309 for Muse Wonder (max) and $1.23 for Claude Opus 4.8 (max effort).
Last updated , from board data generated at 16:59 UTC.
Picks and Verdict
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.
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, 203 Elo above Muse Wonder (high).
At max the board can't separate them, and Muse Wonder gets there for a quarter of the price. Muse Wonder (max) sits 9 Elo above Claude Opus 4.8 (max effort), with overlapping 95% ranges, the #16 model of 81 against the #18 model. Muse costs $0.309 a script against $1.23 for Opus and finishes in 2.0 minutes against 9.8. 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 203 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 258 Elo. Muse gains 352 Elo from high to max for about 2.1 times the price, Opus 140 from high to max effort for about 6.4 times. Opus at high, at $0.193 and 1.4 minutes, sits 149 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 Muse Wonder and Claude Opus 4.8, 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) | 1997 | 1956 to 2041 | 80.6 | $0.309 | 2.0 min | 9,601 | #32 |
| Claude Opus 4.8 (max effort) | 1988 | 1950 to 2034 | 80.7 | $1.23 | 9.8 min | N/A | #34 |
| Claude Opus 4.8 (high) | 1848 | 1811 to 1889 | 79.3 | $0.193 | 1.4 min | N/A | #48 |
| Muse Wonder (high) | 1645 | 1583 to 1712 | 76.7 | $0.149 | 0.9 min | 1,385 | #61 |
| Muse Wonder (adaptive) | 1590 | 1531 to 1636 | 76.2 | $0.139 | 0.8 min | 766 | #71 |
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 1997 (range 1956 to 2041) and Claude Opus 4.8 (max effort) at Elo 1988 (range 1950 to 2034) have overlapping 95% ranges, 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 1848 and $0.193 per script leads Muse Wonder (high) at Elo 1645 and $0.149 per script by 203 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 Opus 4.8 leads at high. 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 Muse Wonder Configuration Above Claude Opus 4.8's Best. The cheapest Muse Wonder configuration with a higher Writing Elo than Claude Opus 4.8 (max effort), at Elo 1988 and $1.23 per script, is Muse Wonder (max), at Elo 1997 and $0.309 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. Muse Wonder moves +352 Elo from high to max, at about 2.1 times the cost per script. Claude Opus 4.8 moves +140 Elo from high to max effort, at about 6.4 times the cost per script.
Writing Elo at Each Shared Level Name
| Level | Muse Wonder | Claude Opus 4.8 | Gap | 95% Ranges |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| high | 1645 | 1848 | -203 | Separate |
| max | 1997 | 1988 | +9 | Overlap |
Gap is Muse Wonder minus Claude Opus 4.8 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 four of the nine metrics and Claude Opus 4.8 (max effort) 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
| Muse Wonder (max) | Claude Opus 4.8 (max effort) | |
|---|---|---|
| Score spread across drafts (±) | 1.91 | 2.02 |
| Lowest script score | 78.2 Script 10 | 77.5 Script 4 |
| Highest script score | 82.2 Script 5 | 83.1 Script 6 |
| Range across scripts | 4.0 | 5.6 |
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 Opus 4.8 (max effort), and the higher score is in bold.
| Script | Muse Wonder (max) | Claude Opus 4.8 (max effort) | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Script 1 opinion / warning explainer | 81.3 | 80.2 | +1.1 |
| Script 2 news-analysis / skeptical explainer | 81.7 | 80.6 | +1.1 |
| Script 3 personal roadmap / opinion | 81.3 | 79.3 | +2.0 |
| Script 4 short explainer | 79.5 | 77.5 | +2.0 |
| Script 5 news-analysis / opinion explainer | 82.2 | 80.3 | +1.9 |
| Script 6 founder announcement / personal origin story | 81.3 | 83.1 | -1.8 |
| Script 7 personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study | 78.5 | 82.5 | -4.0 |
| Script 8 product release announcement / personal observation | 82.1 | 82.5 | -0.4 |
| Script 9 career guide / hiring analysis | 79.9 | 82.0 | -2.1 |
| Script 10 engineering process walkthrough / presentation adaptation | 78.2 | 78.9 | -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