Head-to-head comparison across 1 benchmark categories
Claude 4.1 Opus
62
Claude Mythos Preview
84
Pick Claude Mythos Preview if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude 4.1 Opus only becomes the better choice if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Coding
+9.3 difference
Claude 4.1 Opus
Claude Mythos Preview
$null / $null
$25 / $125
29 t/s
N/A
1.66s
N/A
200K
1M
Pick Claude Mythos Preview if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude 4.1 Opus only becomes the better choice if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Claude Mythos Preview is clearly ahead on the aggregate, 84 to 62. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Mythos Preview's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 83.8 against 74.5. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Verified, 74.5% to 93.9%.
Claude Mythos Preview is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude 4.1 Opus is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Claude Mythos Preview gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for Claude 4.1 Opus.
Claude Mythos Preview is ahead overall, 84 to 62. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 74.5% and 93.9%.
Claude Mythos Preview has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 83.8 versus 74.5. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Get notified when new models drop, benchmark scores change, or the leaderboard shifts. One email per week.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime. We only store derived location metadata for consent routing.