Muse Wonder vs Claude Opus 5.5: API pricing

According to APITariff, Muse Wonder vs Claude Opus 5.5 API pricing is a tie on every rate both publish: $4.00 per 1M input tokens, $20.00 per 1M output tokens and $0.20 per 1M cached input tokens, as listed on OpenRouter and read on Anthropic’s pricing page on 2026-10-13. Only Opus 5.5 lists batch and cache-write rates, and its batch rate bills half, at $2.00 and $10.00 per 1M tokens. Meta’s own pricing pages returned 404, so the Muse Wonder rates rest on one OpenRouter listing fetched 2026-10-13 and three press pages that agree on the $4.00 and $20.00.

Muse Wonder, launched 2026-10-12, was one day old when APITariff read its rates on 2026-10-13. Two more differences reach the bill. Muse Wonder charges $2.50 per 1,000 web searches against $10.00 per 1,000 for Claude Opus 5.5. Anthropic’s pricing page, read 2026-10-13, says its newer tokenizer produces about 30% more tokens than older Claude models for the same text, and no page we read says how Muse Wonder counts.

Last updated 2026-10-13 · 2 models compared on 8 price fields · sources: Anthropic pricing page, OpenRouter, press pages, APITariff fetch, 2026-10-13.

Where do the Muse Wonder and Opus 5.5 rate cards differ?

Muse Wonder and Opus 5.5 match on input, output and cache reads, and Opus 5.5 prints 4 rows that Meta has not: batch input, batch output and two cache-write rates. Of the 8 price fields APITariff compared on 2026-10-13, 3 tie, Muse Wonder is lower on 1 (web search) and 4 are published only for Claude Opus 5.5.

	Muse Wonder	Claude Opus 5.5
Input, $ per 1M tokens	4.00	4.00
Output, $ per 1M tokens	20.00	20.00
Cached input read, $ per 1M	0.20	0.20
Cache write, 5 minutes	not published	5.00
Cache write, 1 hour	not published	8.00
Batch input / output, $ per 1M	not published	2.00 / 10.00
Web search, $ per 1,000	2.50	10.00
Context window, tokens	1,048,576	1,000,000
Price changes with prompt length	no, per VentureBeat	no, per Anthropic

Sources: Anthropic pricing, read 2026-10-13; Muse Wonder from OpenRouter’s API listing, fetched 2026-10-13, and VentureBeat and TechCrunch, read 2026-10-13. The context window row is OpenRouter’s listing for both.

The model pages hold the full OpenRouter rows: Muse Wonder and Claude Opus 5.5. Anthropic’s pricing page says a 900,000-token request bills at the same per-token rate as a 9,000-token one. VentureBeat says Meta “charges the same token rate regardless of how much of the available context window a request uses.”

Does the same text cost the same number of tokens on both?

Not necessarily, and this can move the bill more than any row above. Anthropic’s pricing page says its newer tokenizer, used by Claude 4.7 and later models including Opus 5.5, produces “approximately 30% more tokens for the same text”, and that the exact increase depends on the content. No page we read states how many tokens Muse Wonder counts for the same text.

At identical rates, a 30% difference in token count is a 30% difference in the bill. The check is short: paste the same prompt into each provider’s token counter and divide the two counts. We have not counted one text on both. Our token counter handles GPT, Claude and Gemini counts; we have not checked it against Meta’s tokenizer.

How much do Muse Wonder and Opus 5.5 cost at 10k, 100k and 1M calls?

At 1,000 input and 300 output tokens per call, Muse Wonder and Opus 5.5 each bill $10,000 for 1,000,000 calls at standard rates, if both count the same number of tokens. Through Anthropic’s Batch API, Opus 5.5 bills $5,000.

Workload per call	Calls	Muse Wonder and Opus 5.5	Opus 5.5 batch
1,000 in / 300 out	10,000	$100	$50
1,000 in / 300 out	100,000	$1,000	$500
1,000 in / 300 out	1,000,000	$10,000	$5,000
20,000 in / 1,000 out	10,000	$1,000	$500
20,000 in / 1,000 out	100,000	$10,000	$5,000
20,000 in / 1,000 out	1,000,000	$100,000	$50,000

Standard rates, no caching. Muse Wonder has no batch rate in the sources we read, so it has no batch column. The equal bills hold only if the two models count the same tokens for your text.

What does a cached 100,000-token prompt cost on each?

A call with 100,000 cached input tokens, 10,000 new input tokens and 1,000 output tokens bills $0.08 on both models. The first call that writes a 100,000-token prefix into Anthropic’s cache adds $0.50 at the 5-minute rate or $0.80 at the 1-hour rate.

For Muse Wonder no write rate is published in any source we read. A workload that rebuilds its cache often cannot be fully costed on Muse Wonder yet. Anthropic’s page sets a cache hit at 5% of the input price on Opus 5.5, which is the $0.20, and OpenRouter lists the same $0.20 for Muse Wonder.

Where Claude Opus 5.5 wins on price

Opus 5.5 is lower on 0 base fields and has two cheaper routes that Muse Wonder lacks. Batch takes 50% off both rates, $2.00 and $10.00. kie.ai lists Opus 5.5 at $1.60 and $8.00, 60% under Anthropic’s rates. kie.ai did not list Muse Wonder on 2026-10-13, and no batch rate for it was published in the sources we read.

OpenRouter lists a batch row for Opus 5.5 at $2.00 and $10.00 (anthropic/claude-opus-5.5:batch, fetched 2026-10-13) and none for Muse Wonder. If a job can wait for results, Opus 5.5 has a priced half-cost path in our data and Muse Wonder has none.

Where Muse Wonder wins on price

The one rate-card win is web search: $2.50 per 1,000 web searches against $10.00 per 1,000 on Anthropic’s Claude API, 75% lower. At 10,000 searches that is $25 against $100, before the tokens that search results add on either side.

Artificial Analysis, as reported by VentureBeat, puts the cost per Intelligence Index task at $4.52 for Muse Wonder and $5.98 for Opus 5.5, 24% lower. That is Artificial Analysis’s figure, not ours, and it reflects tokens used on its tasks rather than the rate card. We have run neither model, so this page says nothing on quality, speed or accuracy.

Muse Wonder vs Claude Opus 5.5: which costs less per call?

On standard published rates the two tie, so a plain synchronous call has no rate-card winner. Defaults by workload: a job that can run in batch costs half on Opus 5.5, $5,000 per 1,000,000 calls of 1,000 input and 300 output tokens against $10,000. A job that leans on web search costs a quarter per search on Muse Wonder. For anything else, run your own text through each provider’s token counter first, because the token count sets the bill and our counter has not been checked against Meta’s tokenizer. Batch and kie.ai are separate routes and sit outside the standard-rate tie.

Cheaper rows exist in our fetch of 2026-10-13. GPT-6.1 Sol lists $2.00 and $10.00 on OpenRouter, half the Muse Wonder rate, and Muse Spark 1.3 lists $1.25 and $4.25, which bills $2,525 against $10,000 at the 1,000/300 workload. Our Anthropic API pricing guide and the Opus 5.5 post cover Claude’s other rates.

Is Muse Wonder or Opus 5.5 cheaper through kie.ai?

Opus 5.5 is on kie.ai at $4,000 per 1,000,000 calls of 1,000 input and 300 output tokens, against $10,000 for Muse Wonder on OpenRouter. kie.ai does not list this model (checked 2026-10-13), so Muse Wonder’s only priced route in our data is the OpenRouter listing of Meta’s $4.00 and $20.00. kie.ai lists Opus 5.5 at $1.60 input and $8.00 output per 1M tokens on its page, fetched 2026-10-13 and unchanged across 14 fetches since 2026-09-29.

Route	Rate $ in / out per 1M	Bill, 1M calls of 1,000 / 300
Muse Wonder, OpenRouter listing	4.00 / 20.00	$10,000
Claude Opus 5.5, Anthropic direct	4.00 / 20.00	$10,000
Claude Opus 5.5, Anthropic batch	2.00 / 10.00	$5,000
Claude Opus 5.5, kie.ai	1.60 / 8.00	$4,000
GPT-6.1 Sol, kie.ai	0.60 / 3.00	$1,500
Muse Spark 1.3, OpenRouter	1.25 / 4.25	$2,525

Sources: our fetch of kie.ai and OpenRouter rows, 2026-10-13T07:02Z; Anthropic pricing page, read 2026-10-13.

For Opus 5.5 itself, kie.ai is the lowest priced route we hold. Two other rows beat kie.ai’s Opus 5.5 at the same workload: kie.ai’s GPT-6.1 Sol at $1,500 and OpenRouter’s Muse Spark 1.3 at $2,525, against $4,000. We have not sent a request through kie.ai for any of these models and have not read its data-retention terms.

Affiliate link below. If you sign up through it we may earn a commission. It changed nothing in the numbers above, which our fetch read from kie.ai’s page. kie.ai’s rate list has the rest. Our kie.ai page and the 31-model kie.ai comparison cover more models.

Is Muse Wonder free or open source?

No free tier is stated on the pages we read. The aiweekly page, read 2026-10-13, says Meta is betting on frontier capability “rather than on open weights” and does not say whether the weights are released, so open-weights status is not covered.

VentureBeat says the pay-as-you-go API runs only in Standard mode, where Meta says submitted content is not used for training, with rate limits of 3,000 requests and 4 million tokens per minute. Regions and any waitlist are not stated on any page we read.

Does Muse Wonder Full have an API price?

No. TechCrunch and VentureBeat, both read 2026-10-13, say Muse Wonder Full is available only to Muse Code subscribers, at $50 a month for the Power tier and $200 a month for the Maximum tier, and is not served through the API. VentureBeat adds that Meta has not announced a pay-as-you-go price for it. This page prices Muse Wonder, the API model, only.

How we compared

We took Anthropic’s own pricing page for Opus 5.5 and OpenRouter’s listing plus press pages for Muse Wonder, paired the base rates and counted 8 price fields. OpenRouter’s Muse Wonder row carries one rate, $4.00 and $20.00, from 1 fetch on 2026-10-13T07:02Z, so it has no history yet. Collection details are on the methodology page.

The cheapest LLM API ranking puts these rows beside every text model we fetch.

Cite as: According to APITariff (apitariff.com/compare/muse-wonder-vs-claude-opus-5-5-api-pricing/, read 2026-10-13).

Parts of this page were drafted with AI from APITariff’s price data and reviewed by a human editor. A script draws the hero chart from the table figures; no image is generated.

Change log

• 2026-10-13First edition. Meta launched Muse Wonder 2026-10-12; our first fetch of the row was 2026-10-13T07:02Z. Opus 5.5 rates read on Anthropic's pricing page 2026-10-13. Meta's own pages were not readable.