Artificial Analysis 评测 Meta Muse Ember：智能指数 36 分，成本为…
Meta's newest model Muse Ember scores 36 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, matching Claude Haiku 5.5 (max) at a third of the Cost per Task
Artificial Analysis 评测显示，Meta 新模型 Muse Ember（max）在 Intelligence Index 上得 36 分，与 Claude Haiku 5.5（max）持平，但每任务成本为 0.14 美元，约为后者的三分之一。它是该指数 36 分及以上模型中成本最低的，xhigh 档得 34 分、每任务 0.12 美元；比同分的 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 和 GLM-5.3-Flash 便宜约 4 倍。知识类指标是短板，AA-Omniscience 准确率 21.1%，因 64% 的问题选择不作答，幻觉率降至 17.4%；在 Muse Code 中 Coding Agent Index 得 46 分，高于 Claude Code 中的 Claude Haiku 5.5（37）和 Codex 中的 GPT-6 Luna（31）。定价为每 1M token 输入 0.10 美元、缓存输入 0.004 美元、输出 0.50 美元，已在 Meta 一方 API 和 Muse Code 上线。
推荐理由
精选AI 评分 70
第三方评测给出 Muse Ember 与 Claude Haiku 5.5 同分但成本仅三分之一的对比，可据此判断低成本档位的取舍。
主题
正文
Meta's newest model Muse Ember scores 36 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, matching Claude Haiku 5.5 (max) at a third of the Cost per Task
Muse Ember is Meta's newest efficient-tier model line, with the same input and output token prices as Claude Haiku 5.5 and GPT-6 Luna
Key Takeaways:
➤ On the Intelligence Index vs. Cost per Task Pareto frontier at both max and xhigh effort. Muse Ember (max) is the cheapest model scoring 36 or higher, at $0.14 per task, and Muse Ember (xhigh) scores 34 for $0.12. Claude Haiku 5.5 (max) costs almost 3x more at $0.41 for the same score as Muse Ember (max). Muse Ember (max) is also about 4x cheaper than DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max, 33, $0.60) and GLM-5.3-Flash (28, $0.58)
➤ 8 points behind Muse Wonder for about 1/50th of the Cost per Task. Muse Wonder (max) scores 44 at $6.95 per Intelligence Index task
➤ Stands out on AutomationBench-AA. Muse Ember (max) scores 68.1% on AutomationBench-AA, level with Muse Wonder (max), and beats Claude Haiku 5.5 (max) on GDP.pdf (22.8% vs 20.8%), but trails it on AA-Briefcase (1521 vs 1574 Elo)
➤ Mixed in agentic coding in our Intelligence Index evaluations. It beats Claude Haiku 5.5 (max) on Terminal-Bench 4.0 (40.9% vs 32.8%) but trails it on FrontierCode 2.0 (27.2% vs 34.9%)
➤ Ahead of similarly priced models when running in its own coding agent. In Muse Code, Muse Ember (max) scores 46 on the Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index, ahead of Claude Haiku 5.5 in Claude Code (max, 37) and GPT-6 Luna in Codex (max, 31)
➤ Knowledge is the main weakness, but it rarely hallucinates. Its AA-Omniscience accuracy of 21.1% is the lowest of the similarly intelligent models we compared, against 34.7% for Claude Haiku 5.5 (max) and 50.5% for Gemini 3.8 Flash (high). This is mostly because it declines to answer 64% of questions, which keeps its hallucination rate at 17.4%, half of Claude Haiku 5.5’s (max)
Other details: ➤ Pricing: $0.10 input / $0.004 cached input / $0.50 output per 1M tokens ➤ Reasoning effort: results shown at max effort, with xhigh also on the Intelligence vs. Cost chart ➤ Availability: Meta's first-party API and Muse Code