text model comparison
Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Muse Ember
Claude Haiku 5.5 and Muse Ember are both current text models, from Anthropic and Meta. Both cost $0.10 per 1M input tokens. On Arena WebDev, Claude Haiku 5.5 scores 1595 Elo and Muse Ember 1608 Elo (Arena, measured November 9, 2026). Both accept about 1.05M tokens of context (1,000,000 and 1,048,576).
- Higher Arena WebDev
- Muse Ember1608 Elo against 1595 Elo
- Longer context window
- Muse Ember1.05M tokens against 1M tokens
- Newer release
- Muse EmberNov 2026 against Oct 2026
Data verified November 10, 2026 · Dataset 2026-11-10
Side by side
Claude Haiku 5.5 and Muse Ember, line by line
Prices in effect today, compared at the same tier wherever both list one. The better value in each row is highlighted.
| Fact | Claude Haiku 5.5 | Muse Ember |
|---|---|---|
| Price | ||
| Price per 1M input tokens | $0.10 | $0.10 |
| Price per 1M output tokens | $0.50 | $0.50 |
| Independent benchmarks | ||
| Arena WebDev | 1595 Elo (#27 of 48) | 1608 Elo (#26 of 48) (better) |
| Arena Text | 1422 Elo (#43 of 53) | Not measured |
| GPQA Diamond | 89.6% (#32 of 43) | Not measured |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 (v2) | 75.1% (#21 of 43) | Not measured |
| SimpleQA Verified | 23.8% (#37 of 40) | Not measured |
| Specs | ||
| Provider | Anthropic | Meta |
| Release date | October 7, 2026 | November 9, 2026 |
| Access | API only | API only |
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens |
| Max output | 128,000 tokens | 524,288 tokens |
| Input | text, image | text, image, audio, video |
| Output | text | text |
Provider results
What the labs report
Results tables a lab published with one of its models, where it lists both Claude Haiku 5.5 and Muse Ember. These are the lab's own figures, not independent measurements, and each table is read on its own: labs run benchmarks with different harnesses and budgets.
Meta, Muse Ember launch charts, November 9, 2026Meta · 2026-11-10
| Benchmark | Claude Haiku 5.5 | Muse Ember |
|---|---|---|
| Agents' Last ExamLinux subset | 57.0% | 61.6% (better) |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0best published harness | 39.2% | 40.9% (better) |
| OSWorld 2.1partial credit | 68.9% | 69.5% (better) |
| OSWorld 2.1binary | 27.8% | 33.8% (better) |
| PerceptionBenchwith tools | 78.6% | 80.6% (better) |
Meta's charts from the Muse Ember announcement, every model at max reasoning effort and run by Meta. Terminal-Bench 4.0 uses each model's best published harness: mini-swe-agent for Muse Ember, Claude Code for Claude Haiku 5.5 and Codex for GPT-6 Luna. Left out here: the rows Artificial Analysis ran (AutomationBench-AA, Coding Agent Index-AA, FrontierCode 2.0-AA, GDP.pdf-AA and its Intelligence Index) and Meta's internal Personal Superintelligence Index.
Charts
Against every current text model
Where Claude Haiku 5.5 and Muse Ember land among the current models of their task, on every independent benchmark, on price and on context.
Where each stands
On Arena WebDev, Claude Haiku 5.5 ranks #27 and Muse Ember #26 of 48 current models. Each bar is the share of current models it beats: on score, price and context.
Independent benchmarks
Arena Text
Claude Haiku 5.5:#43of 53
1,422 Elo · ahead of 19%
Muse Ember: Not scored
Arena WebDev
Claude Haiku 5.5:#27of 48
1,595 Elo · ahead of 45%
Muse Ember:#26of 48
1,608 Elo · ahead of 47%
GPQA Diamond
Claude Haiku 5.5:#32of 43
89.6% · ahead of 26%
Muse Ember: Not scored
FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 (v2)
Claude Haiku 5.5:#21of 43
75.1% · ahead of 52%
Muse Ember: Not scored
SimpleQA Verified
Claude Haiku 5.5:#37of 40
23.8% · ahead of 8%
Muse Ember: Not scored
Price and context
Price per 1M input tokens
Claude Haiku 5.5:#1of 61
$0.10 · cheaper than 95%
Muse Ember:#1of 61
$0.10 · cheaper than 95%
Price per 1M output tokens
Claude Haiku 5.5:#3of 61
$0.50 · cheaper than 92%
Muse Ember:#3of 61
$0.50 · cheaper than 92%
Context window
Claude Haiku 5.5:#28of 70
1M tokens · longer than 23%
Muse Ember:#12of 70
1.05M tokens · longer than 67%
Quality against price
Claude Haiku 5.5 scores 1,422 at $0.2 (blended price per 1M tokens). The line joins the current models no other beats on both price and Arena Text score; hover any point to name it.
Quality against price: the data
| Model | Provider | Blended price per 1M tokens | Arena Text (Elo) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gemini 4 Carbon | $4 | 1,526 | |
| Gemini 4 Argon | $4 | 1,522 | |
| Muse Wonder | Meta | $8 | 1,511 |
| Claude Opus 5.5 | Anthropic | $8 | 1,506 |
| Claude Fable 5 | Anthropic | $20 | 1,504 |
| Claude Fable 5.1 | Anthropic | $20 | 1,503 |
| Gemini 3.8 Flash | $1.50 | 1,497 | |
| Muse Spark 1.3 | Meta | $2 | 1,496 |
| Claude Opus 5 | Anthropic | $10 | 1,490 |
| Kimi K3 | Moonshot Kimi | $6 | 1,487 |
| GPT-5.6 Sol | OpenAI | $8 | 1,485 |
| Qwen3.8-Max | Alibaba Qwen | $3 | 1,484 |
| Gemini 3.6 Flash | $3 | 1,483 | |
| GLM-5.3 | Z.ai | $2.15 | 1,483 |
| Claude Opus 4.8 | Anthropic | $10 | 1,482 |
| GPT-6.1 Sol | OpenAI | $4 | 1,482 |
| GPT-5.5 | OpenAI | $11 | 1,481 |
| MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Xiaomi MiMo | $0.54 | 1,480 |
| GPT-5.4 | OpenAI | $5.63 | 1,475 |
| DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash | DeepSeek | $0.52 | 1,475 |
| GPT-6 Astra | OpenAI | $20 | 1,474 |
| GLM-5.3-Flash | Z.ai | $0.24 | 1,474 |
| Gemini 3 Flash Preview | $1.13 | 1,473 | |
| Grok 4.20 | xAI | $1.56 | 1,472 |
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 | Anthropic | $4 | 1,472 |
| GPT-5.6 Terra | OpenAI | $4.50 | 1,468 |
| Grok 4.5 | xAI | $3 | 1,466 |
| DeepSeek-V4-Pro | DeepSeek | $1.98 | 1,464 |
| Claude Sonnet 5 | Anthropic | $4 | 1,461 |
| GPT-6 Sol | OpenAI | $4 | 1,457 |
| Grok 4.6 | xAI | $3 | 1,456 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | $0.85 | 1,455 | |
| GPT-5.6 Luna | OpenAI | $0.45 | 1,453 |
| MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Xiaomi MiMo | $0.18 | 1,448 |
| Step 5 Preview | StepFun | $1.43 | 1,448 |
| Grok 4.3 | xAI | $1.56 | 1,442 |
| Grok 4.7 | xAI | $3 | 1,442 |
| GPT-6 Luna | OpenAI | $0.20 | 1,441 |
| Mistral Large 4 | Mistral AI | $1.05 | 1,423 |
| Claude Haiku 5.5 | Anthropic | $0.20 | 1,422 |
| GPT-4.1 | OpenAI | $3.50 | 1,415 |
| Inkling 2 Small | Thinking Machines Lab | $0.47 | 1,412 |
| Solar Pro 4 | Upstage | $0.52 | 1,387 |
| GPT-4.1 mini | OpenAI | $0.70 | 1,383 |
| GPT-4.1 nano | OpenAI | $0.18 | 1,322 |
Cost
What each costs
Example workloads at each provider's listed rates, then every other rate either one lists. The cheaper figure in each row is highlighted.
The same work, priced
At each provider's listed rates.
10M input and 2M output tokens
The same price
- Claude Haiku 5.5
- $2
- Muse Ember
- $2
The same, with 9M of the input tokens cached
Claude Haiku 5.5 costs 1.0× as much
- Claude Haiku 5.5
- $1.19
- Muse Ember
- $1.14
| Workload or rate | Claude Haiku 5.5 | Muse Ember |
|---|---|---|
| Example workloads | ||
| 10M input and 2M output tokens | $2 | $2 |
| The same, with 9M of the input tokens cached | $1.19 | $1.14 (better) |
| The same, through the batch API | $1 | Not listed |
| Other listed rates | ||
| 1M input tokens, cached | $0.01 | $0.004 (better) |
| 1M input tokens, 5-minute cache write | $0.125 | Not listed |
| 1M input tokens, 1-hour cache write | $0.20 | Not listed |
| 1M input tokens, batch | $0.05 | Not listed |
| 1M output tokens, batch | $0.25 | Not listed |
| 1M input tokens, cached, prompts over 200K tokens | Not listed | $0.012 |
| 1M input tokens, prompts over 100K tokens | $0.50 | Not listed |
| 1M output tokens, prompts over 100K tokens | $2.50 | Not listed |
| 1M input tokens, prompts over 200K tokens | Not listed | $0.30 |
| 1M output tokens, prompts over 200K tokens | Not listed | $1.50 |
Your own bill will differ. These figures use list prices and example workloads. The AI Model Cost Audit reviews your real usage, shortlists models that score as well for each task for less, and estimates the savings.
Launch price $100, regular price $150
Verdict
When to choose each
Claude Haiku 5.5
Where it leads
- Batch pricing, $0.05 input and $0.25 output per 1M tokens
Best for
- High-volume classification, extraction and routing under the 100,000-token line
- Cost-sensitive fan-out steps where a frontier model is overkill
Watch out for
- Priced by prompt length, and it is a cliff rather than a taper: a request whose prompt passes 100,000 tokens is billed at $0.50 input and $2.50 output for the whole request, five times the short rate
- Cache reads and cache writes both count toward that 100,000-token measurement, so a large cached prefix can tip a request into the higher band on its own
- It is the only current Claude model whose 1M window is not priced uniformly; every other 4.6-and-later model bills a 900k request at the same rate as a 9k one
Muse Ember
Where it leads
- Higher Arena WebDev score, 1608 Elo vs 1595 Elo
- Longer responses, up to 524,288 vs 128,000 output tokens
- Accepts audio and video input
- Cheaper cached input, $0.004 vs $0.01 per 1M tokens
Best for
- Sub-agent work under a larger planner such as Muse Spark or Muse Wonder
- High-volume extraction, classification and routing over images, documents and records
Watch out for
- A request over 200K input tokens is billed in full at three times the rate: $0.30 input, $1.50 output and $0.012 cached input per 1M tokens
- Claude Haiku 5.5 scores higher on FrontierCode 2.0 as run by Artificial Analysis (34.9% against 27.2%), a row in Meta's own launch post
- Arena Text has not rated it yet, and its WebDev rating rests on 1,345 votes so far
From benchmark to production
Building on Claude Haiku 5.5 or Muse Ember?
Public scores rarely hold on your own data. We test both models on your real tasks, then build the agent or pipeline around the one that wins.
AI Model Cost AuditLaunch price $100, regular price $150What the audit includes
FAQ
Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Muse Ember FAQ
Which is cheaper, Claude Haiku 5.5 or Muse Ember?
Both cost $0.10 per 1M input tokens. For 10M input and 2M output tokens, Claude Haiku 5.5 costs $2 and Muse Ember $2 at standard rates.
Which is cheaper with prompt caching, Claude Haiku 5.5 or Muse Ember?
Claude Haiku 5.5 charges $0.01 per 1M cached input tokens, 90% below its standard input rate, and Muse Ember $0.004, 96% below. With 9M of 10M input tokens cached and 2M output tokens, Claude Haiku 5.5 costs $1.19 and Muse Ember $1.14.
Which scores higher on independent benchmarks, Claude Haiku 5.5 or Muse Ember?
Muse Ember leads on Arena WebDev, 1608 Elo to 1595 Elo. Scores are independent evaluations, not either vendor's launch figures.
How do Claude Haiku 5.5 and Muse Ember compare in Meta's own results?
In the Muse Ember launch charts (November 9, 2026), Muse Ember leads on Agents' Last Exam (Linux subset), 61.6% to 57.0%; Muse Ember leads on Terminal-Bench 4.0 (best published harness), 40.9% to 39.2%; Muse Ember leads on OSWorld 2.1 (partial credit), 69.5% to 68.9%. These are Meta's figures, not independent measurements.
Which has the larger context window, Claude Haiku 5.5 or Muse Ember?
Both accept about 1.05M tokens of context (1,000,000 and 1,048,576). Muse Ember returns up to 524,288 tokens per response, Claude Haiku 5.5 128,000.
How do Claude Haiku 5.5 and Muse Ember differ in features?
Claude Haiku 5.5 takes text and image input; Muse Ember takes text, image, audio and video.
Further reading
More on Claude Haiku 5.5 and Muse Ember
Articles on Claude Haiku 5.5 and Muse Ember
- Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Haiku 4.5: What Changes When You UpgradeOctober 14, 2026
- Claude Haiku 5.5: Real Cost, Benchmarks and When to Use ItOctober 14, 2026
Related comparisons
- Claude Fable 5 vs Claude Haiku 5.5
- GPT-6 Luna vs Muse Ember
- Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Claude Opus 4.8
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Muse Ember
- Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Claude Opus 5.5
- Muse Ember vs Muse Spark 1.3
- Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Claude Sonnet 5
- GPT-4.1 nano vs Muse Ember
- Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Claude Sonnet 5.5
- Claude Haiku 5.5 vs DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash
- Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
- Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Gemini 3.8 Flash
Production evaluation
Choosing between Claude Haiku 5.5 and Muse Ember?
Public benchmarks narrow the shortlist. We run both on your own tasks, data and cost limits, then build the routing and review controls to run the winner in production.
- A head-to-head evaluation on your real workload
- Routing between models by cost and difficulty