Model comparison
Claude Mythos 5 vs Claude Opus 4.6
Head-to-head evidence from 8 shared benchmark results across 3 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Mythos 5 #2 (Supported); Claude Opus 4.6 #19 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Mythos 5 and Claude Opus 4.6 share 8 comparable benchmark results. 5 of 8 categories are comparable. 7 results are unique to Claude Mythos 5; 38 to Claude Opus 4.6.
Updated July 24, 2026- Shared results
- 8
- Claude Mythos 5 only
- 7
- Claude Opus 4.6 only
- 38
- Comparable categories
- 5 / 8
Pick Claude Mythos 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Opus 4.6 only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 8 shared benchmark results across 3 evidence categories; 5 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Claude Mythos 5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 83.01 to 67.84. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Mythos 5's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 97.6 against 36.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Pro, 80.3% to 53.4%. Claude Opus 4.6 does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Claude Mythos 5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $10.00 input / $50.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens for Claude Opus 4.6. That is roughly 2.0x on output cost alone. Claude Mythos 5 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude Opus 4.6 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 5 gives you the larger context window at 1M+, compared with 1M for Claude Opus 4.6.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Claude Mythos 5 | Δ | Claude Opus 4.6 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Claude Mythos 597.6 | Margin← 61.3 | Claude Opus 4.636.3 |
| Coding | Claude Mythos 589.7 | Margin← 21.6 | Claude Opus 4.668.1 |
| Multimodal | Claude Mythos 593.5 | Margin← 16.2 | Claude Opus 4.677.3 |
| Agentic | Claude Mythos 587.0 | Margin← 14.0 | Claude Opus 4.673.0 |
| Knowledge | Claude Mythos 568.5 | Margin→ 0.6 | Claude Opus 4.669.1 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 80.3%B 53.4%Winner: Claude Mythos 5Δ 26.9SWE-bench Pro: Claude Mythos 5 scored 80.3%; Claude Opus 4.6 scored 53.4%. Claude Mythos 5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 88%B 65.4%Winner: Claude Mythos 5Δ 22.6Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Mythos 5 scored 88%; Claude Opus 4.6 scored 65.4%. Claude Mythos 5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 95.5%B 80.8%Winner: Claude Mythos 5Δ 14.7SWE-bench Verified: Claude Mythos 5 scored 95.5%; Claude Opus 4.6 scored 80.8%. Claude Mythos 5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
OSWorld-Verified
AgenticA 85%B 72.7%Winner: Claude Mythos 5Δ 12.3OSWorld-Verified: Claude Mythos 5 scored 85%; Claude Opus 4.6 scored 72.7%. Claude Mythos 5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 64.5%B 53%Winner: Claude Mythos 5Δ 11.5HLE: Claude Mythos 5 scored 64.5%; Claude Opus 4.6 scored 53%. Claude Mythos 5 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Mythos 5 | Claude Opus 4.6 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Mythos 5$10 input / $50 output | Claude Opus 4.6$5 input / $25 output | Claude Opus 4.6 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Mythos 5Not available | Claude Opus 4.640 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Mythos 5Not available | Claude Opus 4.61.78 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Mythos 51M+ | Claude Opus 4.61M | Claude Mythos 5 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticClaude Mythos 5 wins11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Mythos 5 | Claude Opus 4.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 88% | 65.4% | Claude Mythos 5 leads |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 85% | 72.7% | Claude Mythos 5 leads |
| BrowseCompSource | 88% | 83.7% | Claude Mythos 5 leads |
| ExploitGymSource | 17.5% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 84.8% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 70.4% | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | — | 73.7% | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | — | 66.6% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 61.85% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 19.9% | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | — | 36.7% | Not comparable |
CodingClaude Mythos 5 wins10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Mythos 5 | Claude Opus 4.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 95.5% | 80.8% | Claude Mythos 5 leads |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 80.3% | 53.4% | Claude Mythos 5 leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 88.0% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench Verified*Source | — | 75.6% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench ProSource | — | 70.7% | Not comparable |
| SWE-RebenchSource | — | 65.3% | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | — | 84.1% | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | — | 57.57% | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | — | 45.7% | Not comparable |
| FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource | — | 26.9% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.6 wins15 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Mythos 5 | Claude Opus 4.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 94.1% | 91.3% | Claude Mythos 5 leads |
| HLESource | 64.5% | 53% | Claude Mythos 5 leads |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 59% | 40% | Claude Mythos 5 leads |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 89.2% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 95% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 82% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source | — | 89.1% | Not comparable |
| HealthBench HardSource | — | 14.8% | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (Text)Source | — | 52.1% | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 37.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 84.0% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 18.6% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | 3.5% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 45.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 76.0% | Not comparable |
MathClaude Mythos 5 wins4 benchmarks
Multilingual1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Mythos 5 | Claude Opus 4.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE MultilingualSource | 92.2% | — | Not comparable |
MultimodalClaude Mythos 5 wins9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Mythos 5 | Claude Opus 4.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench MultimodalSource | 54.9% | — | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | 93.5% | — | Not comparable |
| CharXiv w/o toolsSource | 88.9% | — | Not comparable |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 77.3% | Not comparable |
| ERQASource | — | 51.6% | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | — | 83.1% | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (MM)Source | — | 64.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 72.5% | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | — | 1325 | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Mythos 5 | Claude Opus 4.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 44.6% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (6)
Which is better, Claude Mythos 5 or Claude Opus 4.6?
Claude Mythos 5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 83.01 to 67.84. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Pro, where the scores are 80.3% and 53.4%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Mythos 5 or Claude Opus 4.6?
Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 69.1 versus 68.5. Inside this category, HLE w/o tools is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, Claude Mythos 5 or Claude Opus 4.6?
Claude Mythos 5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 89.7 versus 68.1. Inside this category, SWE-bench Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, Claude Mythos 5 or Claude Opus 4.6?
Claude Mythos 5 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 97.6 versus 36.3. Claude Opus 4.6 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Mythos 5 or Claude Opus 4.6?
Claude Mythos 5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 87 versus 73. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Mythos 5 or Claude Opus 4.6?
Claude Mythos 5 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 93.5 versus 77.3. Claude Opus 4.6 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.