Claude Code vs. Muse Code

Comparação entre Claude Code e Muse Code no Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index, incluindo pontuações de benchmarks, custo, tempo de execução e uso de tokens.

Para saber mais sobre nossa metodologia, consulte a página de metodologia.

Explore outras comparações
vs

Destaques

Coding Agent Index

Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index v1.4 · Higher is better
Not publicly available

Tempo por tarefa

Average agent wall time per task · Lower is better
Not publicly available

Custo por tarefa

Average API cost per task (USD) · Lower is better
Not publicly available

Comparação

Comparação lado a lado de Claude Code e Muse Code.

Comparação de agentes de programação

Métrica
Claude Code
Fable 5.1 (max) (with fallback)
Muse Code
Muse Spark 1.3 (max)
Análise
Harness do agente
Claude Code
Muse Code
Modelo representativo
Fable 5.1 (max) (with fallback)
Muse Spark 1.3 (max)
Coding Agent Index
70
68
Claude Code tem um Coding Agent Index mais alto que Muse Code
DeepSWE
66%
68%
Muse Code tem uma pontuação mais alta em DeepSWE que Claude Code
Terminal-Bench v2.1
89%
84%
Claude Code tem uma pontuação mais alta em Terminal-Bench v2.1 que Muse Code
SWE-Atlas-QnA
56%
52%
Claude Code tem uma pontuação mais alta em SWE-Atlas-QnA que Muse Code
Custo por tarefa
$9.18
$0.00
Comparação não disponível
Tempo por tarefa
24.0m
24.6m
Claude Code tem um tempo por tarefa mais baixo que Muse Code
Turnos por tarefa
25.4
128.5
Claude Code tem menos turnos por tarefa que Muse Code
Uso de tokens por tarefa
7.1M
14.2M
Claude Code tem um uso de tokens por tarefa mais baixo que Muse Code
Taxa de acertos de cache
90%
95%
Muse Code tem uma taxa de acertos de cache mais alta que Claude Code

Variantes de modelo

Variantes de modelo avaliadas para Claude Code e Muse Code.

Variantes de modelo

Claude Code
Fable 5.1 (max) (with fallback)
70
66%
89%
56%
$9.18
24.0m
7.1M
Claude Code
Opus 5 (xhigh)
68
60%
89%
55%
$8.17
23.7m
21.6M
Claude Code
Fable 5 (max) (with fallback)
67
66%
87%
49%
$11.69
23.5m
13.9M
Claude Code
Opus 5 (max)
67
63%
89%
49%
$8.94
24.2m
23.7M
Claude Code
Fable 5 (xhigh) (with fallback)
66
65%
87%
46%
$8.53
17.1m
10.3M
Claude Code
Opus 5 (high)
66
61%
87%
49%
$3.92
14.0m
9.9M
Claude Code
Fable 5 (high) (with fallback)
65
64%
89%
42%
$5.97
12.2m
7.1M
Claude Code
Opus 5 (medium)
64
63%
85%
44%
$3.17
12.2m
8M
Claude Code
Fable 5 (medium) (with fallback)
63
64%
87%
39%
$4.74
11.0m
5.7M
Claude Code
Opus 4.8 (max)
62
56%
84%
47%
$7.72
23.1m
17.9M
Claude Code
Qwen3.8 Max
61
52%
84%
48%
$3.23
29.9m
12.5M
Claude Code
Opus 5 (low)
59
57%
82%
39%
$2.30
10.0m
5.3M
Claude Code
Opus 5 (none)
59
44%
82%
52%
$3.53
11.8m
9.2M
Claude Code
Opus 4.8 (xhigh)
59
51%
83%
43%
$5.67
17.8m
13.6M
Claude Code
Fable 5 (low) (with fallback)
59
60%
82%
34%
$3.17
8.2m
3.7M
Claude Code
Opus 4.8 (high)
58
52%
82%
39%
$3.78
12.7m
9.2M
Claude Code
Opus 4.8 (medium)
56
49%
82%
36%
$3.30
12.0m
7.8M
Claude Code
Opus 4.7 (max)
52
40%
78%
37%
$5.92
15.8m
16.1M
Claude Code
Opus 4.8 (low)
49
41%
78%
28%
$2.18
8.6m
5.2M
Claude Code
GLM-5.2
43
29%
72%
29%
$1.62
25.1m
11M
Claude Code
Opus 4.7 (medium)
42
27%
77%
23%
$1.80
6.7m
4.6M
Claude Code
Sonnet 4.6 (medium)
39
29%
67%
20%
$2.04
13.8m
8.4M
Claude Code
Qwen3.7 Plus (thinking)
38
19%
72%
24%
$6.30
10.7m
8.8M
Claude Code
GLM-5.1
37
19%
67%
25%
$4.28
19.0m
25.8M
Claude Code
Kimi K2.6
34
17%
69%
16%
$1.22
40.7m
11.7M
Claude Code
DeepSeek V4 Pro (high)
33
9%
70%
20%
$0.25
17.9m
9.9M
Muse Code
Muse Spark 1.3 (max)
68
68%
84%
52%
$0.00
24.6m
14.2M
Muse Code
Muse Spark 1.3 (xhigh)
64
67%
82%
44%
$1.72
12.8m
14.8M
Muse Code
Muse Spark 1.2 (xhigh)
62
58%
82%
45%
$2.07
40.8m
20M

Desempenho

Desempenho no Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index.

Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index

Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index v1.4 incorporates 3 benchmarks: DeepSWE, Terminal-Bench v2.1, and SWE-Atlas-QnA · Higher is better
Not publicly available
Since benchmarking, we have observed a higher rate of content safety filtering on this endpoint.

The Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index is a composite score built from DeepSWE, Terminal-Bench v2.1, and SWE-Atlas-QnA.

It is useful for quick comparison, but it should be read alongside the per-eval breakdowns. Two agents with similar index values can still have different strengths across repository tasks, terminal workflows, and rubric-based evaluations.

Uso de tokens

Consumo de tokens no Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index.

Uso de tokens por tarefa

Média de tokens de entrada, cache e saída por tarefa
Prompt cache hit rates can vary significantly by provider routing, which can materially change effective cost.

Non-cached input tokens sent to the model, including prompts, instructions, tool context, and task context that were not served from prompt cache.

Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index vs. tokens totais

Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index vs. média de tokens totais por tarefa
Most attractive quadrant

Each point represents a coding-agent variant. Farther left means lower average total token usage per task, while higher on the chart means higher benchmark performance. Agents toward the upper-left achieve stronger results with fewer tokens.

Custo

Custo da API de pagamento por token no Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index, com base nos preços atuais por token.

Custo por tarefa

Average pay-per-token API cost per task (USD) · Lower is better

This chart shows the average pay-per-token API cost per task across the Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index, spanning DeepSWE, Terminal-Bench v2.1, and SWE-Atlas-QnA.

Where applicable, that cost model includes standard input pricing, discounted cached-input pricing, separate cache-write charges, and output pricing rather than treating all prompt tokens as if they were billed at the same uncached input rate.

It is intended to show pay-per-token API cost, not consumer plan pricing or the full operational cost of deploying the system in production. Infrastructure, engineering, and supervision costs are not the focus of this metric.

Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index vs. custo por tarefa

Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index vs. média do custo da API de pagamento por token por tarefa (USD)
Most attractive quadrant

Each point represents a coding-agent variant. Farther left means lower average cost per task, while higher on the chart means higher benchmark performance. The most efficient agents sit toward the upper-left: stronger results at lower cost.

Tempo de execução

Tempo de execução ativo do agente no Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index.

Tempo por tarefa

Average agent wall time per task · Lower is better
Not publicly available

This chart uses agent wall time: how long the agent process was actively running on each task.

It does not include environment startup, verifier or judge time, or other harness overhead, so it is a cleaner comparison of how long the agent itself was working.

Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index vs. tempo de execução

Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index vs. média do tempo de execução do agente por tarefa
Most attractive quadrant

Each point represents a coding-agent variant. Farther left means shorter average agent runtime per task, while higher on the chart means higher benchmark performance. Agents toward the upper-left deliver stronger results in less active agent time.