Coding
Like-for-like- Claude Mythos 5
- 89.7
- dots3-note Preview
- 71.7
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Claude Mythos 5 leads
Claude Mythos 5 vs dots3-note Preview
Updated August 14, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
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.
5 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
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.
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Claude Mythos 5
Claude Mythos 5 leads on the same 2 weighted benchmark rows.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Claude Mythos 5
Claude Mythos 5 has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
10 Claude Mythos 5 only
5 Shared
26 dots3-note Preview only
- Shared results
- 5
- Claude Mythos 5 only
- 10
- dots3-note Preview only
- 26
- Like-for-like categories
- 1 / 8
2 categories use different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.
Agentic
Directional only- Claude Mythos 5
- 87.0
- dots3-note Preview
- 83.3
- Weighted basis
- 3 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Knowledge
Directional only- Claude Mythos 5
- 68.5
- dots3-note Preview
- 52.6
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude Mythos 5
- Not measured
- dots3-note Preview
- 81.4
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude Mythos 5
- 97.6
- dots3-note Preview
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Mythos 5
- Not measured
- dots3-note Preview
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Claude Mythos 5
- 93.5
- dots3-note Preview
- 79.1
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude Mythos 5
- Not measured
- dots3-note Preview
- 85.1
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Mythos 5 | dots3-note Preview | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 89.7 | 71.7 | Like-for-like2 vs 2 rows | Claude Mythos 5 leads |
| Agentic | 87.0 | 83.3 | Directional only3 vs 1 rows | Directional only |
| Knowledge | 68.5 | 52.6 | Directional only2 vs 1 rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | Not measured | 81.4 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 97.6 | Not measured | Not comparable1 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 93.5 | 79.1 | Not comparable1 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | 85.1 | Not comparable0 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
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.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
SWE-bench Pro
Coding
Claude Mythos 5: 80.3%dots3-note Preview: 61%Normalized gap 19.3Claude Mythos 5 source dots3-note Preview sourceSWE-bench Verified
Coding
Claude Mythos 5: 95.5%dots3-note Preview: 78.4%Normalized gap 17.1Claude Mythos 5 source dots3-note Preview sourceHLE
Knowledge
Claude Mythos 5: 64.5%dots3-note Preview: 52.6%Normalized gap 11.9Claude Mythos 5 source dots3-note Preview sourceBrowseComp
Agentic
Claude Mythos 5: 88%dots3-note Preview: 83.3%Normalized gap 4.7Claude Mythos 5 source dots3-note Preview source
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
- $0.035
- Fits in one request
- dots3-note Preview
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
dots3-note Preview has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Claude Mythos 5
- $0.65
- Fits in one request
- dots3-note Preview
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
dots3-note Preview has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Claude Mythos 5
- $0.9
- Fits in one request
- dots3-note Preview
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
dots3-note Preview has no comparable published API token rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationClaude Mythos 5dots3-note Preview
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Mythos 5
dots3-note Preview
API model ID
Claude Mythos 5
claude-mythos-5
Anthropic model overviewdots3-note Preview
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
$1 per 1M cached input tokens
Claude API pricingdots3-note Preview
No comparable hosted API rate
dots3-note Preview model cardDocumented inputs
Claude Mythos 5
text, image
Anthropic model overviewdots3-note Preview
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Claude Mythos 5
dots3-note Preview
Not sourced
Provider availability
Claude Mythos 5
Limited Access · Claude API
Anthropic model overviewdots3-note Preview
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Claude Mythos 5
Reasoning
dots3-note Preview
Reasoning
Weight access
Claude Mythos 5
Proprietary
dots3-note Preview
Open Weight
License
Claude Mythos 5
Proprietary
dots3-note Preview
Open Weight
Release date
Claude Mythos 5
2026-06-09
dots3-note Preview
2026-08-14
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
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Claude Mythos 5 has the larger documented window (1M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence41 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Mythos 588%Sourcedots3-note Preview—Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Mythos 585%Sourcedots3-note Preview—Not directly comparable
BrowseComp
Claude Mythos 588%Sourcedots3-note Preview83.3%SourceClaude Mythos 5 leads this result
CyberGym
Claude Mythos 583.8%Sourcedots3-note Preview—Not directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Claude Mythos 5—dots3-note Preview73.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Claude Mythos 5—dots3-note Preview75.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
Claude Mythos 5—dots3-note Preview55.6%SourceNot directly comparable
skillsBench
Claude Mythos 5—dots3-note Preview52.8%SourceNot directly comparable
APEX-Agents
Claude Mythos 5—dots3-note Preview30.8%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE w/ tools
Claude Mythos 5—dots3-note Preview52.6%SourceNot directly comparable
DeepSearchQA
Claude Mythos 5—dots3-note Preview92.1%SourceNot directly comparable
WideResearch
Claude Mythos 5—dots3-note Preview78.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Claude Mythos 595.5%Sourcedots3-note Preview78.4%SourceClaude Mythos 5 leads this result
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Mythos 580.3%Sourcedots3-note Preview61%SourceClaude Mythos 5 leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Mythos 588.0%Sourcedots3-note Preview—Not directly comparable
Codeforces
Claude Mythos 5—dots3-note Preview3056.0SourceNot directly comparable
LiveCodeBench v6
Claude Mythos 5—dots3-note Preview91.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Claude Mythos 5—dots3-note Preview75.1%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
Claude Mythos 5—dots3-note Preview75.7%SourceNot directly comparable
NL2Repo
Claude Mythos 5—dots3-note Preview49.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
ARC-AGI-2
Claude Mythos 5—dots3-note Preview81.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
Math
Multilingual
SWE Multilingual
Claude Mythos 592.2%Sourcedots3-note Preview—Not directly comparable
Multimodal
SWE-bench Multimodal
Claude Mythos 554.9%Sourcedots3-note Preview—Not directly comparable
CharXiv
Claude Mythos 593.5%Sourcedots3-note Preview—Not directly comparable
CharXiv w/o tools
Claude Mythos 588.9%Sourcedots3-note Preview83.1%SourceClaude Mythos 5 leads this result
SimpleVQA
Claude Mythos 5—dots3-note Preview72.5%SourceNot directly comparable
MMMU-Pro
Claude Mythos 5—dots3-note Preview79.1%SourceNot directly comparable
MathVision
Claude Mythos 5—dots3-note Preview87.7%SourceNot directly comparable
ZeroBench
Claude Mythos 5—dots3-note Preview19.0%SourceNot directly comparable
GDP.pdf (no tools)
Claude Mythos 5—dots3-note Preview60.7%SourceNot directly comparable
PerceptionBench
Claude Mythos 5—dots3-note Preview53.4%SourceNot directly comparable
BabyVision
Claude Mythos 5—dots3-note Preview50.0%SourceNot directly comparable
MMVU
Claude Mythos 5—dots3-note Preview79.9%SourceNot directly comparable
VideoMMMU
Claude Mythos 5—dots3-note Preview86.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Instruction following
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Claude Mythos 5 or dots3-note Preview?
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 or dots3-note Preview?
Claude Mythos 5 leads the like-for-like coding comparison across 2 shared weighted benchmark rows.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Mythos 5 or dots3-note Preview?
The current agentic tasks averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which costs less, Claude Mythos 5 or dots3-note Preview?
Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.
Which has the larger context window, Claude Mythos 5 or dots3-note Preview?
Claude Mythos 5 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 512K.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 14, 2026
Watch Claude Mythos 5 vs dots3-note Preview
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.