Haiku 5.5 vs Muse Wonder Full
Haiku 5.5 cheaper in both pairings. Muse Wonder Full leads on quality in 1 of 2 pairings; the rest show no clear difference. 2 pairings; 24 merged changes in Stet-AI/stet. Compare the individual calls below to choose which setup to investigate.
What this comparison is
- 1 real repositoryStet-AI/stet, private; not public benchmark scores
- 24 merged changeseach run end to end by the coding agent from the repo as it was before the change
- Graded against the merged changeby the repo’s own tests and by judges comparing each patch with it
- Quality, cost and timea smaller sample than public benchmarks, but real agent work on a real codebase
Compare coding modelsLow vs high vs xhigh/max reasoning for coding agents
Recorded setup pairings
Each row is a separate recorded comparison. Scores are not pooled or averaged across effort settings. W/D/L means wins, draws and losses; undecided judgments remain undecided.
Stet score: A setup’s average chance of beating another setup on a task, from 0 to 100; 50 is even with the field.
| Setup pairing | Recorded quality call and record | Quality evidence | Cost per task | Agent time per task |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Haiku 5.5 max vs Muse Wonder Full lowHaiku 5.5 max · max reasoningMuse Wonder Full low · low reasoning23/24 tasks observed by both setups. | Muse Wonder Full low has a slight quality edge, 4–2 head to head with 16 tied and 2 undecided; Haiku 5.5 max leads on cost: 3.7× cheaper; Muse Wonder Full low leads on agent time: 2.7× faster.Head to head, Muse Wonder Full low won 4, tied 16 and lost 2 against Haiku 5.5 max, with 2 undecided. | Slight edge 4–2 head to head, 16 tiedHaiku 5.5 max: 48.2 (95% range 38.8–58.1)Muse Wonder Full low: 52.0 (95% range 48.4–56.0) | Haiku 5.5 max: $0.78 Muse Wonder Full low: $2.85 | Haiku 5.5 max: 58.4 min Muse Wonder Full low: 21.6 min |
| Haiku 5.5 low vs Muse Wonder Full lowHaiku 5.5 low · low reasoningMuse Wonder Full low · low reasoning24/24 tasks observed by both setups. | Muse Wonder Full low leads on quality: won 4, tied 19, lost 0, 1 undecided head to head; Haiku 5.5 low leads on cost and agent time: 44.3× cheaper and 2.2× faster.Head to head, Muse Wonder Full low won 4, tied 19 and lost 0 against Haiku 5.5 low, with 1 undecided.Not yet conclusive across all 136 comparisons on the board. | Clear lead 4–0 head to head, 19 tiedHaiku 5.5 low: 44.7 (95% range 39.5–49.1)Muse Wonder Full low: 52.0 (95% range 48.4–56.0) | Haiku 5.5 low: $0.06 Muse Wonder Full low: $2.85 | Haiku 5.5 low: 9.9 min Muse Wonder Full low: 21.6 min |
Questions about these results
- Which is better for coding, Haiku 5.5 or Muse Wonder Full?
- Haiku 5.5 cheaper in both pairings. Muse Wonder Full leads on quality in 1 of 2 pairings; the rest show no clear difference. 2 pairings; 24 merged changes in Stet-AI/stet. Compare the individual calls below to choose which setup to investigate.
- Where do these coding results come from?
- Both coding agents worked the same 24 merged changes from the private Stet-AI/stet repository, each in the real repo as it was before the change. The repo’s tests and judges graded every patch against the merged change; no public benchmark scores are used.
- Are reasoning settings combined into one model score?
- No. Each effort pairing keeps its own recorded quality call, head-to-head record, cost and agent time. Incompatible scores are never averaged.