Skip to main content

Model comparison

Claude Mythos 5 vs GPT-4o mini Audio

Updated August 4, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Claude Mythos 5

Anthropic

83.0/100

Supported · Public rank #1

90% interval 79.3–86.8

GPT-4o mini Audio

OpenAI

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. Use the documented cost, context, and runtime rows instead.

0 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.

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    Claude Mythos 5

    Claude Mythos 5 has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    GPT-4o mini Audio

    GPT-4o mini Audio 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

    GPT-4o mini Audio

    GPT-4o mini Audio has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.

    Confidence: limited

  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

    200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. GPT-4o mini Audio does not fit this workload in one request. GPT-4o mini Audio has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

    Confidence: rate-fallback

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

Shared results
0
Claude Mythos 5 only
15
GPT-4o mini Audio only
0
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

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

Not comparable
Claude Mythos 5
87.0
GPT-4o mini Audio
Not measured
Weighted basis
3 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
Claude Mythos 5
89.7
GPT-4o mini Audio
Not measured
Weighted basis
2 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Claude Mythos 5
Not measured
GPT-4o mini Audio
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
Claude Mythos 5
68.5
GPT-4o mini Audio
Not measured
Weighted basis
2 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Claude Mythos 5
97.6
GPT-4o mini Audio
Not measured
Weighted basis
1 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Claude Mythos 5
Not measured
GPT-4o mini Audio
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Claude Mythos 5
93.5
GPT-4o mini Audio
Not measured
Weighted basis
1 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Claude Mythos 5
Not measured
GPT-4o mini Audio
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
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.

A shared-evidence shape is not available.

BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.

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
GPT-4o mini Audio
$0.00045
Fits in one request

GPT-4o mini Audio has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Claude Mythos 5
$0.65
Fits in one request
GPT-4o mini Audio
$0.0093
Fits in one request

GPT-4o mini Audio 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
$0.9
Fits in one request
GPT-4o mini Audio
$0.039
Does not fit in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate

GPT-4o mini Audio does not fit this workload in one request. GPT-4o mini Audio has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

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 pricing

GPT-4o mini Audio

Reasoning profile

Claude Mythos 5

Reasoning

GPT-4o mini Audio

Non-Reasoning

Weight access

Claude Mythos 5

Proprietary

GPT-4o mini Audio

Proprietary

License

Claude Mythos 5

Proprietary

GPT-4o mini Audio

Proprietary

Release date

Claude Mythos 5

2026-06-09

GPT-4o mini Audio

Not sourced

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
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict.
Workload cost
Repository review: $0.65 vs $0.0093. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.9 vs $0.039.
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 evidence15 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Claude Mythos 588%
    Source
    GPT-4o mini Audio

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld-Verified

    Claude Mythos 585%
    Source
    GPT-4o mini Audio

    Not directly comparable

  • BrowseComp

    Claude Mythos 588%
    Source
    GPT-4o mini Audio

    Not directly comparable

  • ExploitGym

    Claude Mythos 517.5%
    Source
    GPT-4o mini Audio

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Claude Mythos 595.5%
    Source
    GPT-4o mini Audio

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Claude Mythos 580.3%
    Source
    GPT-4o mini Audio

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Claude Mythos 588.0%
    Source
    GPT-4o mini Audio

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA

    Claude Mythos 594.1%
    Source
    GPT-4o mini Audio

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE

    Claude Mythos 564.5%
    Source
    GPT-4o mini Audio

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/o tools

    Claude Mythos 559%
    Source
    GPT-4o mini Audio

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • USAMO 2026

    Claude Mythos 597.6%
    Source
    GPT-4o mini Audio

    Not directly comparable

Multilingual

  • SWE Multilingual

    Claude Mythos 592.2%
    Source
    GPT-4o mini Audio

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • SWE-bench Multimodal

    Claude Mythos 554.9%
    Source
    GPT-4o mini Audio

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv

    Claude Mythos 593.5%
    Source
    GPT-4o mini Audio

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv w/o tools

    Claude Mythos 588.9%
    Source
    GPT-4o mini Audio

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Claude Mythos 5 or GPT-4o mini Audio?

The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, Claude Mythos 5 or GPT-4o mini Audio?

The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Mythos 5 or GPT-4o mini Audio?

The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.

Which costs less, Claude Mythos 5 or GPT-4o mini Audio?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.035 on Claude Mythos 5 and $0.00045 on GPT-4o mini Audio; repository review costs $0.65 and $0.0093; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.9 and $0.039. GPT-4o mini Audio does not fit this workload in one request. GPT-4o mini Audio has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

Which has the larger context window, Claude Mythos 5 or GPT-4o mini Audio?

Claude Mythos 5 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 128K.

Related comparisons

Last updated August 4, 2026

Watch Claude Mythos 5 vs GPT-4o mini Audio

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.