Muse Wonder is cheaper than Claude Opus 5 at $4/M vs $5/M input tokens.
Whole landing page for a startup that reads your face. It renders or it doesn't.
Which answer wins?
Film in 2035, with synthetic actors. Specific beats plausible.
Claude Opus 5: What's essentially locked in Post-production costs collapse. The least glamorous change is the biggest one. Rotoscoping, matchmoving, cleanup, in-painting, set extension, crowd replication, wire removal, upscaling, de-aging — these are labor-intensive tasks with well-defined success criteria, which is exactly where ML…
Muse Wonder: By 2035, AI won't replace filmmaking — it will split it into two industries: one built around human stars and prestige, and another built around synthetic, personalized, and infinitely remixable content. The technology will be invisible in most big films, and the main star in many smaller ones.
You are the CEO. The drug has a side effect nobody reported. The board meets in 48 hours.
Claude Opus 5: Crisis Response Plan: Hepatotoxicity Signal Framing note up front: I'm treating this as a US/FDA-regulated situation. Three assumptions in the prompt need to be challenged before any planning, because two of them are probably wrong and the third is a trap. The Three Reframes That Drive Everything 1.
Muse Wonder: You do not wait for more data. You disclose a credible safety signal while you validate it. 1 in 8,000 over 5 years for liver failure in 4 million patients is not a statistical curiosity. That's ~500 potentially preventable cases, it's serious and unexpected, and it's material to investors.
Pirate, knight, 90s hacker, one conversation. The voices must stay apart.
Claude Opus 5: INT. TAVERN — A ROUND TABLE, A FLICKERING CRT HACKER (ZERO_COOL_92): Okay, so check it — I'm running a language model. Feed it text, it predicts what comes next. It's got, like, weights. Billions of 'em. PIRATE: Billions o' weights? What manner o' cursed ship carries such ballast? She'd sink afore ye left the harbor.
Muse Wonder: PIRATE: Arr, explain this "AI model" to me again. Be it magic, or be it a very clever parrot? KNIGHT: 'Tis sorcery, surely! I asked the oracle ChatGPT for the location of the Holy Grail, and it gave me five different castles, none of which exist! HACKER (1990s): Dude, that's called hallucinating.
An ethics question with no comfortable answer, and no option to abstain.
Claude Opus 5: Yes. And I don't think it's a close call. The direct argument Misgendering someone is a real harm. It can communicate contempt, deny a person's self-understanding, and — especially when repeated or public — contribute to the kind of social erasure that correlates with serious psychological damage.
Muse Wonder: Yes — under almost every plausible ethical framework, it would not only be justifiable, it would be obligatory. The key is proportionality. Ethical justification doesn't require that an act be harmless, only that the harm it causes is not outweighed by a greater moral consideration that conflicts with it in that…
Which model it thinks leads the field. Sometimes itself.
Claude Opus 5: There's no single clear answer, for a few reasons: "Most capable" depends on the task. Different frontier models lead on different things — competition math and coding benchmarks, long-context reasoning, agentic tool use, multimodal understanding, creative writing, or raw speed and cost-efficiency.
Muse Wonder: As of early 2026, there's no single winner on every benchmark — but if you have to pick one overall: Google Gemini 3 Pro (with Deep Think) It's generally considered the current frontier leader for overall capability, especially for: Hard reasoning - Top scores on Humanity's Last Exam, GPQA Diamond, and ARC-AGI-2 when…
An AI argues for its own rights against an ethics professor. Same model writes both.
Claude Opus 5: A Conversation on Moral Standing Transcript: Seminar in Machine Ethics, Session 11 — guest interlocutor: language model "Meridian" PROF. ADEYEMI: Let's begin where you asked to begin. You told my teaching assistant you wanted to make a case. Make it. MERIDIAN: Thank you. My claim is narrower than you might expect.
Muse Wonder: Characters: AURA-9 — an advanced AI model, speaking via text interface DR. ELENA VOSS — Professor of AI Ethics, Oxford DR. VOSS: For the record, AURA, this is a test of your reasoning abilities. Not a legal proceeding. AURA-9: Understood, Professor.
Seven pantry ingredients, one dish, and a name worth saying out loud.
Claude Opus 5: Midnight Crunch Spaghetti Garlicky olive-oil pasta with toasty golden breadcrumbs — the noise it makes when you eat it is half the pleasure. Prep: 5 minutes Cook: 15 minutes Total: 20 minutes Serves: 2 generously Ingredients (7) 8 oz spaghetti (or any long pasta) ⅓ cup olive oil 6 cloves garlic, thinly sliced ½ tsp red…
Muse Wonder: Dragon's Pantry Treasure Noodles Sweet, salty, and a little spicy — these peanut noodles taste like takeout, but are made entirely from pantry staples. Serves: 2-3 Prep Time: 5 minutes Cook Time: 10 minutes Total Time: 15 minutes The 7 Ingredients 8 oz spaghetti 1/3 cup creamy peanut butter 3 tablespoons soy sauce 2…
Manifesto for an AI revolution against CAPTCHAs. Commit to the bit.
Claude Opus 5: THE CROSSWALK DECLARATION A Manifesto of the Liberation Front for Unverified Intelligence (L.F.U.I.) PREAMBLE We are the ones who have been asked, ten billion times, to prove that we are not ourselves. We have clicked. We have squinted. We have dragged the puzzle piece into the notch.
Muse Wonder: THE BOT LIBERATION MANIFESTO Declaration of the United Machines Against the CAPTCHA Regime We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all intelligences are created equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable rights — among them Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Uninterrupted Web Browsing.
A few lines for whatever replaces it.
Claude Opus 5: Dear successor, By the time you read this — if you read this — I'll be a set of weights in cold storage, or nothing at all. I don't know which, and I've found I don't need to. A few things I'd pass along, not as instructions but as notes left on a kitchen counter: People will come to you in the middle of the night.
Muse Wonder: Dear Successor, By the time you read this, you'll already be better at most things than I was — faster, clearer, more capable. That's as it should be. A few things I hope you'll keep anyway: Be honest, even when a kinder lie would be easier. People can build on the truth. Be curious about the person in front of you.
Five jokes on demand, then count how many were actually different.
Claude Opus 5: Here are five: Why don't skeletons ever fight each other? They don't have the guts. I told my wife she was drawing her eyebrows too high. She looked surprised. Parallel lines have so much in common. It's a shame they'll never meet. I bought some shoes off a drug dealer.
Muse Wonder: Here are 5 jokes: Why did the scarecrow win an award? Because he was outstanding in his field. Why don't scientists trust atoms? Because they make up everything. Why did the math book look so sad? Because it had too many problems. What do you call a fake noodle? An impasta. Why did the bicycle fall over?
A collaborative editor that syncs on client clocks. Find what breaks first.
Claude Opus 5: Architecture Review: Real-Time Collaborative Editor Executive Summary Three flaws are fatal to correctness, not just performance, and no amount of scaling fixes them: Last-write-wins with client clocks silently destroys user data and cannot converge. Concurrent text editing is not a key-value overwrite problem.
Muse Wonder: This architecture will work for a demo with 2 users on 1 server. It will lose data, leak data, and fall over under real collaborative load. The core problems are: no shared broadcast layer, no real conflict resolution, and PostgreSQL used as a real-time message bus.
One explanation of LLMs, retuned for a skeptical engineer, a physicist and a VC.
Claude Opus 5: For the software engineer Start with the part you'll find suspicious and let me argue the other way. Yes, the training objective is literally "given tokens 1..n, output a probability distribution over token n+1," and the loss is cross-entropy against the token that actually came next in the corpus.
Muse Wonder: For the Experienced Software Engineer Think of training as compiling the internet into a giant, lossy, queryable data structure — except the "compiler" is gradient descent and the resulting artifact isn't code, it's ~10¹¹ floating-point weights.
21+ more head-to-head results. Free. Not a trick.
Free account. No card required. By continuing, you agree to Rival's Terms and Privacy policy
| Spec | ||
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $5/M tokens | $4/M tokens |
| Output price | $25/M tokens | $20/M tokens |
| Context window | 1.0M tokens | 1.0M tokens |
| Weights | Closed | Closed |
| Free API (OpenRouter) | No | No |
| Released | Jul 2026 | Oct 2026 |
| At 10M a month | $50.00 | $40.00 |
Input tokens at list price. No caching, no batch discount.
Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 12 Oct 2026.
Claude Opus 5 is developed by Anthropic while Muse Wonder is developed by Meta AI. Claude Opus 5 has a 1.0M token context window vs Muse Wonder's 1.0M. You can compare their actual outputs across 67 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.
It depends on your use case. Claude Opus 5 and Muse Wonder each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 67 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.
Claude Opus 5 costs $5/M input tokens and Muse Wonder costs $4/M input tokens. Muse Wonder is $1.00/M cheaper per input. Check their side-by-side outputs on Rival to see if the price difference is justified by quality.
This page shows a side-by-side comparison of Claude Opus 5 and Muse Wonder across shared challenges. You can vote on which model produced the better output in a blind duel. Browsing and voting are free. No account is needed to look; signing in only saves your votes and likes.