Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Claude Mythos 5
99
Gemma 4 E2B
23
Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Mythos 5 #1 · Gemma 4 E2B unranked
Pick Claude Mythos 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemma 4 E2B only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Knowledge
+20.5 difference
Claude Mythos 5
Gemma 4 E2B
$10 / $50
$0 / $0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1M+
128K
Pick Claude Mythos 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemma 4 E2B only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Claude Mythos 5 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 99 to 23. 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 knowledge, where it averages 74.6 against 54.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 94.1% to 43.4%.
Claude Mythos 5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $10.00 input / $50.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Gemma 4 E2B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Claude Mythos 5 gives you the larger context window at 1M+, compared with 128K for Gemma 4 E2B.
Claude Mythos 5 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 99 to 23. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 94.1% and 43.4%.
Claude Mythos 5 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 74.6 versus 54.1. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.