Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Kimi K3.1 Pro
Kimi K3.1 Pro has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Claude Mythos 5.2 vs Kimi K3.1 Pro
Updated November 10, 2026. We do not rank this pair: at least one has no public score. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
Share or export
Decision reading
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. 3 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
- API price per 1M tokens
Claude Mythos 5.2: $8 input / $40 output
Kimi K3.1 Pro: $2 input / $10 output
- Context window
Claude Mythos 5.2: 1M
Kimi K3.1 Pro: 1.05M
- Released
Claude Mythos 5.2: November 9, 2026
Kimi K3.1 Pro: October 23, 2026
- Shared results
- 3
- Claude Mythos 5.2 only
- 11
- Kimi K3.1 Pro only
- 44
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Estimated: Kimi K3.1 Pro. Conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.How the comparison works
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Kimi K3.1 Pro
Kimi K3.1 Pro has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-ratesCache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Kimi K3.1 Pro
Kimi K3.1 Pro has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Kimi K3.1 Pro
Kimi K3.1 Pro has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-ratesCoding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
Claude Mythos 5.2 and Kimi K3.1 Pro are not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Confidence: limitedAgentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Claude Mythos 5.2 is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.
Confidence: limited
Which one for a specific job
Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.
The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.
—Claude Mythos 5.2—Kimi K3.1 Pro
Not comparable · BenchAlign v5.8
The coding row is not comparable on the public lane: at least one model is not measured or not ranked there.
Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.
Same basis rules as the category table below
Or describe your own job
The LLM Selector reads what you need a model for and returns a shortlist, ranked in the same order the job pages publish.
Describe the task and constraints. This selector recommends models; it cannot carry out the task or access your files and accounts.
We keep what you type here, drafts included, for 180 days, and after that only the job and requirements read from it. Nothing is tied to your IP address or account. Leave out names and other personal details. Privacy
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
11 Claude Mythos 5.2 only
3 Shared
44 Kimi K3.1 Pro only
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
A shared-evidence shape is not available.
BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 lane for agentic, coding, reasoning, multimodal, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
Agentic
Not comparable- Claude Mythos 5.2
- Not ranked
- Kimi K3.1 Pro
- 72.7
- Supported · #10/132
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 5 vs 19 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Coding
Not comparable- Claude Mythos 5.2
- Not ranked
- Kimi K3.1 Pro
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 8 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude Mythos 5.2
- Not ranked
- Kimi K3.1 Pro
- 70.6
- Supported · #17/158
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 0 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Claude Mythos 5.2
- Not ranked
- Kimi K3.1 Pro
- 73.9
- Estimated · #12/67
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 1 vs 15 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Claude Mythos 5.2
- Not ranked
- Kimi K3.1 Pro
- 74.5
- Supported · #13/179
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 8 vs 5 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Mythos 5.2
- Not ranked
- Kimi K3.1 Pro
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude Mythos 5.2
- Not ranked
- Kimi K3.1 Pro
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude Mythos 5.2
- Not ranked
- Kimi K3.1 Pro
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Mythos 5.2 | Kimi K3.1 Pro | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Not ranked | 72.7Supported · #10/132 | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 5 vs 19 public rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 8 public rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not ranked | 70.6Supported · #17/158 | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 0 public rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not ranked | 73.9Estimated · #12/67 | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 1 vs 15 public rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not ranked | 74.5Supported · #13/179 | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 8 vs 5 public rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, reasoning, multimodal, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Claude Mythos 5.2
- $0.028
- Fits in one request
- Kimi K3.1 Pro
- $0.007
- Fits in one request
Kimi K3.1 Pro has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Claude Mythos 5.2
- $0.52
- Fits in one request
- Kimi K3.1 Pro
- $0.13
- Fits in one request
Kimi K3.1 Pro has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Claude Mythos 5.2
- $0.6
- Fits in one request
- Kimi K3.1 Pro
- $0.18
- Fits in one request
Kimi K3.1 Pro has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Your workload
Enter a month of tokens to price it at both models’ listed API rates.
- Claude Mythos 5.2
- $160.00
- per month
- Kimi K3.1 Pro
- $40.00
- per month
Standard listed rates, no batch or volume discounts.
Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationClaude Mythos 5.2Kimi K3.1 Pro
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Mythos 5.2
Kimi K3.1 Pro
1.05M
API model ID
Claude Mythos 5.2
claude-mythos-5-2
Anthropic Claude Mythos 5.2 model documentationKimi K3.1 Pro
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Claude Mythos 5.2
$0.2 per 1M cached input tokens
Claude Mythos 5.2 model documentationKimi K3.1 Pro
$0.2 per 1M cached input tokens
Documented inputs
Claude Mythos 5.2
Kimi K3.1 Pro
text, image
Kimi-K3.1-Pro model cardDocumented outputs
Claude Mythos 5.2
Kimi K3.1 Pro
Provider availability
Claude Mythos 5.2
Limited Access · Cyber Verification Program, Life Sciences Verification Program, Claude Security
Anthropic Claude Mythos 5.2 model documentationKimi K3.1 Pro
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Claude Mythos 5.2
Reasoning
Kimi K3.1 Pro
Reasoning
Weight access
Claude Mythos 5.2
Proprietary
Kimi K3.1 Pro
Open Weight
License
Claude Mythos 5.2
Proprietary
Kimi K3.1 Pro
Open Weight
Release date
Claude Mythos 5.2
2026-11-09
Kimi K3.1 Pro
2026-10-23
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.52 vs $0.13. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.6 vs $0.18.
- Context tradeoff
- Kimi K3.1 Pro has the larger documented window (1.05M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Questions
Which is better, Claude Mythos 5.2 or Kimi K3.1 Pro?
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, Claude Mythos 5.2 or Kimi K3.1 Pro?
Claude Mythos 5.2 and Kimi K3.1 Pro are not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Mythos 5.2 or Kimi K3.1 Pro?
Claude Mythos 5.2 is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.
Which costs less, Claude Mythos 5.2 or Kimi K3.1 Pro?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.028 on Claude Mythos 5.2 and $0.007 on Kimi K3.1 Pro; repository review costs $0.52 and $0.13; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.6 and $0.18. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Which has the larger context window, Claude Mythos 5.2 or Kimi K3.1 Pro?
Kimi K3.1 Pro has the larger documented context window: 1.05M, compared with 1M.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
Claude Mythos 5.2
API / mo$36,000
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even—
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
Kimi K3.1 Pro
API / mo$9,000
Self-host / mo$57,606
Break-evenNot reached at 70% load
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence58 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 4.0
Claude Mythos 5.270.50%SourceKimi K3.1 Pro65.70%SourceClaude Mythos 5.2 leads this result
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1
Claude Mythos 5.275.3%SourceKimi K3.1 Pro38.1%SourceClaude Mythos 5.2 leads this result
CVE Rediscovery
Claude Mythos 5.289.6%SourceKimi K3.1 Pro—Not directly comparable
ExploitGym
Claude Mythos 5.238.1%SourceKimi K3.1 Pro20.7%SourceClaude Mythos 5.2 leads this result
Binary Exploitation Benchmark
Claude Mythos 5.2148SourceKimi K3.1 Pro—Not directly comparable
HLE w/ tools
Claude Mythos 5.2—Kimi K3.1 Pro70.0%SourceNot directly comparable
BrowseComp
Claude Mythos 5.2—Kimi K3.1 Pro92.1%SourceNot directly comparable
BioMysteryBench
Claude Mythos 5.2—Kimi K3.1 Pro80.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Agents' Last Exam
Claude Mythos 5.2—Kimi K3.1 Pro43.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Agents' Last Exam (CLI)
Claude Mythos 5.2—Kimi K3.1 Pro44.2%SourceNot directly comparable
APEX-Agents
Claude Mythos 5.2—Kimi K3.1 Pro69.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Frontier Finance
Claude Mythos 5.2—Kimi K3.1 Pro58.6%SourceNot directly comparable
HANDBOOK.md
Claude Mythos 5.2—Kimi K3.1 Pro44.6%SourceNot directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Claude Mythos 5.2—Kimi K3.1 Pro79.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Business Operation
Claude Mythos 5.2—Kimi K3.1 Pro37.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Financial Modeling
Claude Mythos 5.2—Kimi K3.1 Pro57.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Financial Research
Claude Mythos 5.2—Kimi K3.1 Pro70.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Kimi Hallu Bench Hard (tools)
Claude Mythos 5.2—Kimi K3.1 Pro8.3%SourceNot directly comparable
MazeBench
Claude Mythos 5.2—Kimi K3.1 Pro2%SourceNot directly comparable
OSWorld 2.1
Claude Mythos 5.2—Kimi K3.1 Pro79.6%SourceNot directly comparable
CWE-bench
Claude Mythos 5.2—Kimi K3.1 Pro45.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
DeepSWE
Claude Mythos 5.2—Kimi K3.1 Pro75.5%SourceNot directly comparable
ProgramBench (binary)
Claude Mythos 5.2—Kimi K3.1 Pro31.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Kimi Code Bench v2
Claude Mythos 5.2—Kimi K3.1 Pro77.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Kimi Code Bench 3.0 Long-horizon
Claude Mythos 5.2—Kimi K3.1 Pro61.2%SourceNot directly comparable
sweMarathon
Claude Mythos 5.2—Kimi K3.1 Pro51.7%SourceNot directly comparable
PostTrainBench v1.2
Claude Mythos 5.2—Kimi K3.1 Pro36.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Bug Hunt Bench
Claude Mythos 5.2—Kimi K3.1 Pro36.0 fixesSourceNot directly comparable
FrontierCode 2.0
Claude Mythos 5.2—Kimi K3.1 Pro19.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Multimodal
Biomedical image analysis
Claude Mythos 5.280.7%SourceKimi K3.1 Pro—Not directly comparable
OfficeQA Pro
Claude Mythos 5.2—Kimi K3.1 Pro67.4%SourceNot directly comparable
OfficeQA Pro v2
Claude Mythos 5.2—Kimi K3.1 Pro64.4%SourceNot directly comparable
BenchCAD Vision2Code (no tools)
Claude Mythos 5.2—Kimi K3.1 Pro0.728SourceNot directly comparable
BenchCAD Vision2Code (tools)
Claude Mythos 5.2—Kimi K3.1 Pro0.927SourceNot directly comparable
MMMU-Pro
Claude Mythos 5.2—Kimi K3.1 Pro84.1%SourceNot directly comparable
MMMU-Pro w/ Python
Claude Mythos 5.2—Kimi K3.1 Pro90%SourceNot directly comparable
CharXiv
Claude Mythos 5.2—Kimi K3.1 Pro93.4%SourceNot directly comparable
CharXiv w/o tools
Claude Mythos 5.2—Kimi K3.1 Pro89%SourceNot directly comparable
Chartography (tools)
Claude Mythos 5.2—Kimi K3.1 Pro90.2%SourceNot directly comparable
BabyVision w/ Python
Claude Mythos 5.2—Kimi K3.1 Pro95.4%SourceNot directly comparable
ZeroBench
Claude Mythos 5.2—Kimi K3.1 Pro39.0%SourceNot directly comparable
ZeroBench w/ Python
Claude Mythos 5.2—Kimi K3.1 Pro63.0%SourceNot directly comparable
GDP.pdf (Gemini judge)
Claude Mythos 5.2—Kimi K3.1 Pro34.6%SourceNot directly comparable
GDP.pdf w/ Python (Gemini judge)
Claude Mythos 5.2—Kimi K3.1 Pro85.7%SourceNot directly comparable
PerceptionBench
Claude Mythos 5.2—Kimi K3.1 Pro68.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
De novo protein-binder design
Claude Mythos 5.285.1%SourceKimi K3.1 Pro—Not directly comparable
Protein Design
Claude Mythos 5.264.6%SourceKimi K3.1 Pro—Not directly comparable
SingleCellBench
Claude Mythos 5.265.6%SourceKimi K3.1 Pro—Not directly comparable
Protocols (troubleshooting)
Claude Mythos 5.277.1%SourceKimi K3.1 Pro—Not directly comparable
Protein Domain ID
Claude Mythos 5.291.8%SourceKimi K3.1 Pro—Not directly comparable
Protein Mutation Attribution
Claude Mythos 5.251.5%SourceKimi K3.1 Pro—Not directly comparable
Morphology-to-molecule matching
Claude Mythos 5.235.2%SourceKimi K3.1 Pro—Not directly comparable
Medicinal chemistry
Claude Mythos 5.269.0%SourceKimi K3.1 Pro—Not directly comparable
GPQA
Claude Mythos 5.2—Kimi K3.1 Pro94.2%SourceNot directly comparable
GPQA-D
Claude Mythos 5.2—Kimi K3.1 Pro94.2%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE
Claude Mythos 5.2—Kimi K3.1 Pro70%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Claude Mythos 5.2—Kimi K3.1 Pro51.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Kimi Hallu Bench
Claude Mythos 5.2—Kimi K3.1 Pro5.4%SourceNot directly comparable
58 public results · 3 shared
Watch Claude Mythos 5.2 vs Kimi K3.1 Pro
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 7,000+ subscribers.
Last updated November 10, 2026