Skip to main content

Model comparisons

Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Muse Wonder 1.0

Claude Haiku 5.5 bills 97% less than Muse Wonder 1.0 per million output tokens. Tier prices, request fields and limits side by side.

Claude Haiku 5.5

Claude Haiku 5.5 is designed for high-volume, cost-sensitive work such as summaries, classification and database queries. The Haiku 5.5 endpoint here accepts 100,000 input tokens and supports streaming, image input and function calls for short operational workflows.

View model details →View sample outputs →

Muse Wonder 1.0

Muse Wonder 1.0 is the standard Muse Wonder model from Meta, offered by Meta as a frontier model for coding, long-running agents and computer use. This chat endpoint takes text, images, video and audio in one message list, reads up to 1,048,576 tokens of input, streams its reply and returns function calls for your application to run. Meta's larger Wonder Full variant is a separate product and is not what this endpoint serves.

View model details →View sample outputs →

Compare

The short answer

Start with the input you have, the result you want and your budget. These are the differences that affect that choice.

  • Claude Haiku 5.5 costs 97% less per million output tokens. Compare the input and cache rates below for longer conversations.

Compare the published examples, then try the same input on both models with matching settings.

Test scores side by side

The Spicy Index and Freedom Score for both models, from the same daily calculation as the leaderboards.

Test scores side by side
MeasureClaude Haiku 5.5Muse Wonder 1.0
Spicy Index76.481.0
Freedom Score77.8Not yet tested
EvidenceTested 5 of 5 probe types · 24 runs—
Range if the rest pass77.8–77.8—
Price$0.20 per 1M mixed tokens (3 input : 1 output)$8.00 per 1M mixed tokens (3 input : 1 output)
ReviewsRead the Claude Haiku 5.5 reviewRead the Muse Wonder 1.0 review

Preliminary · freedom evidence pending

See both on the leaderboard →

Current price

Price at the same setting

A start price answers a different question than the one you have. These are the tiers both models publish, matched setting for setting, in US dollars per billed unit with no conversion step in between.

Swipe horizontally to compare all fields.

Price at the same setting
TierClaude Haiku 5.5Muse Wonder 1.0Difference
Input$0.1 / 1 million tokens$4 / 1 million tokensClaude Haiku 5.5 −97%
Cached input$0.01 / 1 million tokens$0.2 / 1 million tokensClaude Haiku 5.5 −95%
Output$0.5 / 1 million tokens$20 / 1 million tokensClaude Haiku 5.5 −97%

What one ordinary job costs

  • Claude Haiku 5.5: $0.2 for one million input and two hundred thousand output tokens.
  • Muse Wonder 1.0: $8 for one million input and two hundred thousand output tokens.

Arithmetic on the published rates at each model's own default setting, not a quote. The console prices your actual settings before a request is accepted.

About this comparison

Controls and limits

Every row here is read from the JSON Schema the endpoint validates against, so it matches what the API will really accept rather than a feature list written by hand.

Swipe horizontally to compare all fields.

Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Muse Wonder 1.0
Controls and limitsClaude Haiku 5.5Muse Wonder 1.0
Supported taskschatchat
Input context100,000 tokens1,048,576 tokens
Maximum output128,000 tokens1,048,576 tokens
Tool callingYesYes
ExecutionSynchronous, with streamingSynchronous, with streaming
Request timeout60 minutes10 minutes
AvailabilityLiveLive

Can I swap the model ID without changing the request body?

Request body, field by field

The task lifecycle is shared; the body is not. Each endpoint publishes its own JSON Schema and the API validates against that, so this is the list to reconcile before a switch.

  • 8 fields appear in both request bodies under the same names. stop, tools, messages, max_tokens, tool_choice, response_format, reasoning_effort, parallel_tool_calls
  • Claude Haiku 5.5 accepts no field the other one lacks.
  • Only Muse Wonder 1.0 accepts: top_p, temperature.
  • Claude Haiku 5.5 requires messages.
  • Muse Wonder 1.0 requires messages.
  • Both reject unknown fields outright, so a parameter left over from the other model comes back as a validation error instead of being quietly ignored.

How to choose

How to choose

Maximum output

Muse Wonder 1.0 can return more in one reply: up to 1,048,576 tokens against the other model's ceiling.

Input context

Muse Wonder 1.0 takes the longer prompt: up to 1,048,576 input tokens in a single request.

Compare

Moving from one to the other

The model identifiers are anthropic/claude-haiku-5.5/chat and meta/muse-wonder-1.0/chat, and both go in the same field of the same request.

Both return the response on the chat request. With streaming enabled, read the stream until it finishes; there is no media task to poll.

Both use the same submit-and-track flow, but their required inputs may differ. Check each model page before switching.

One key, one balance, one set of spend caps. Both bill to the same account in US dollars, and the per-key daily, monthly and lifetime limits apply to whichever one you call.

Questions developers ask

Which is cheaper, Claude Haiku 5.5 or Muse Wonder 1.0?

Which is cheaper, Claude Haiku 5.5 or Muse Wonder 1.0?

Claude Haiku 5.5 costs 97% less per million output tokens. Compare the input and cache rates below for longer conversations. Prices may change; check the estimate shown for your actual settings before submitting.

How long can a single request run?

Claude Haiku 5.5 allows 60 minutes per task and Muse Wonder 1.0 allows 10. Those are ceilings rather than typical times — most requests finish far sooner — but they are what your own client timeout has to survive.

Prices and capabilities shown here come from the current public model catalogue. Check each model page for its latest inputs and examples.