Muse Ember at a glance
Meta released Muse Ember on November 9, 2026: its smallest, cheapest model, built for the tool calls, coding subtasks and document work AI agents repeat all day. It ties Claude Haiku 5.5 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index at a third of the cost.
Current standing
As of
- Rank
- #16of 45 models
Muse Ember (Max) · 36 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index v5.0.1 (opens in a new tab)
- Recorded at publication
- 36 (v5.0.1)
as of
- Current leader
- Claude Fable 5.2 (Anthropic) · 64.6
Computed from our daily snapshot; it changes as new models are measured. Meta Muse Ember: smallest, cheapest Muse model for AI agents at $0.10 per million input tokens
What changed with Muse Ember
Meta Superintelligence Labs released Muse Ember on November 9, 2026, its smallest and most efficient model, designed for complex reasoning execution and the work agents repeat all day: tool calls, coding subtasks, routing, extraction, and long document parsing. It is available today on Muse Code and the Meta Model API as muse-ember-1.0, supports the Responses API, and natively understands text, images, audio, and video. Ember is the first model Meta trained using Muse Wonder Full, and Meta pitches the pairing directly: Muse Wonder plans, Muse Ember handles the volume.
On Artificial Analysis benchmarks dated November 9, 2026, Muse Ember at max reasoning scores 36 on the Intelligence Index, matching Claude Haiku 5.5 at max and ahead of GPT-6 Luna at max with 28. Ember leads both rivals on AutomationBench-AA end-to-end business workflows (37.8 against 13.9 and 20.2), Agents' Last Exam (61.6 against 57.0 and 57.1), and Terminal-Bench 4.0 agentic coding (40.9 against 39.2 and 16.4). Meta puts Ember's cost at about $0.14 per Artificial Analysis task, against $2.39 for Muse Spark 1.3, which scores 37 on the same index.
Ember costs $0.10 per million input tokens, $0.004 per million cached input tokens, and $0.50 per million output tokens, with a 1M-token context window and up to 512K output tokens, so it can take in a full codebase or document set in one call. Its reasoning_effort setting runs from minimal to max, and Meta evaluated it before release under its Superintelligence Scaling Framework, finding it below the high-risk thresholds in every category assessed. Early partner Box uses it to score contracts against negotiation playbooks and to screen candidates against detailed briefs.
Muse Ember benchmarks and pricing
Values are copied from the linked source on the date shown. They are not IA Compa measurements.
- Artificial Analysis Intelligence Indexas of · Source for Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index: artificialanalysis.ai (opens in a new tab)
- 36 (v5.0.1)
- Input price per 1M tokensas of · Source for Input price per 1M tokens: artificialanalysis.ai (opens in a new tab)
- $0.10
- Output price per 1M tokensas of · Source for Output price per 1M tokens: artificialanalysis.ai (opens in a new tab)
- $0.50
- Context windowas of · Source for Context window: artificialanalysis.ai (opens in a new tab)
- 1M tokens
- AutomationBench-AA (end-to-end business workflows)as of · Source for AutomationBench-AA (end-to-end business workflows): research.meta.ai (opens in a new tab)
- 37.8
- Cost per Artificial Analysis taskas of · Source for Cost per Artificial Analysis task: research.meta.ai (opens in a new tab)
- $0.14
How it compares
Current models we have covered: released in the last six months, newest version of each line only. Each value is the model's latest recorded value. (Models)
Muse Ember reasoning effort
Artificial Analysis tests this model at several reasoning-effort settings. Higher effort usually scores higher but costs more and answers more slowly.
Muse Ember by effort level
Higher effort lets the model think longer. Here is what each setting scores, how fast it writes, and what it costs on Artificial Analysis.
| Effort | Intelligence Index | Output speed (tokens per second) | Cost to run the index | Blended price (3:1) (per 1M tokens) | Price in / out (per 1M tokens) | First token |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Max (Muse Ember (max)) · Best: highest effort with a score, used in the leaderboard | 36 | n/a | $117 | $0.073 | $0.10 / $0.50 | n/a |
| Extra high (Muse Ember (xhigh)) | 34 | n/a | $95.73 | $0.073 | $0.10 / $0.50 | n/a |
Benchmarked by AA: max · xhigh of 6 available
Where to compare Muse Ember
Independent leaderboards and official resources for comparing this model yourself. Rankings change often; each site shows its own current data.
General leaderboards
Why Muse Ember matters for businesses
Why it matters: most of an agent's token bill is small, repetitive steps, and Ember prices that volume at roughly a third of the Haiku and Luna tier while matching their intelligence scores. For agencies and businesses running always-on voice and chat agents, the cheap execution tier just got much cheaper, and pairing a frontier planner with a low-cost worker is now a first-party Meta pattern rather than a workaround.
Get AI News by email
Verified AI stories, each with its official source, on Monday and Thursday mornings. Add breaking news to hear about the biggest ones as soon as we publish them.
Every story links its official source
Free, in English or Spanish
Unsubscribe with one click, any time
Sources for this story
- Introducing Our Smallest, Most Efficient Model: Muse Ember (opens in a new tab)Official
Meta · research.meta.ai
- Meta Model API docs: Models and Reasoning (opens in a new tab)Official
Meta · dev.meta.ai
Last verified: . IA Compa summarizes public announcements for business readers. We are not affiliated with the companies mentioned. Always confirm details, pricing, and availability with the official source.
- #llm
- #meta
- #muse
- #muse-ember
- #agents
- #model-pricing


