Coding
Like-for-like- Claude Mythos 5
- 89.7
- Inkling
- 68.6
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Claude Mythos 5 leads
Claude Mythos 5 vs Inkling
Updated August 29, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
Claude Mythos 5 has the higher public score, 83.4 versus 67.02, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
10 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
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Inkling
Inkling has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Inkling
Inkling 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
Inkling
Inkling has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
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
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
Confidence: documented
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
5 Claude Mythos 5 only
10 Shared
5 Inkling only
- Shared results
- 10
- Claude Mythos 5 only
- 5
- Inkling only
- 5
- Like-for-like categories
- 2 / 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.
Knowledge
Like-for-like- Claude Mythos 5
- 68.5
- Inkling
- 51.6
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Claude Mythos 5 leads
Agentic
Directional only- Claude Mythos 5
- 87.0
- Inkling
- 69.4
- Weighted basis
- 3 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Multimodal
Directional only- Claude Mythos 5
- 93.5
- Inkling
- 76.5
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude Mythos 5
- Not measured
- Inkling
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude Mythos 5
- 97.6
- Inkling
- 97.1
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Mythos 5
- Not measured
- Inkling
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude Mythos 5
- Not measured
- Inkling
- 79.8
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Mythos 5 | Inkling | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 89.7 | 68.6 | Like-for-like2 vs 2 rows | Claude Mythos 5 leads |
| Knowledge | 68.5 | 51.6 | Like-for-like2 vs 2 rows | Claude Mythos 5 leads |
| Agentic | 87.0 | 69.4 | Directional only3 vs 2 rows | Directional only |
| Multimodal | 93.5 | 76.5 | Directional only1 vs 2 rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 97.6 | 97.1 | Not comparable1 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | 79.8 | Not comparable0 vs 1 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
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Agentic
HLE
Knowledge
SWE-bench Verified
Coding
CharXiv
Multimodal
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
- Inkling
- $0.00421
- Fits in one request
Inkling 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
- Inkling
- $0.10754
- Fits in one request
Inkling 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
- Inkling
- $0.159
- Fits in one request
Inkling has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationClaude Mythos 5Inkling
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Mythos 5
Inkling
1M
API model ID
Claude Mythos 5
claude-mythos-5
Anthropic model overviewInkling
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 pricingInkling
$0.374 per 1M cached input tokens
Documented inputs
Claude Mythos 5
text, image
Anthropic model overviewInkling
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Claude Mythos 5
Inkling
Not sourced
Provider availability
Claude Mythos 5
Limited Access · Claude API
Anthropic model overviewInkling
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Claude Mythos 5
Reasoning
Inkling
Hybrid
Weight access
Claude Mythos 5
Proprietary
Inkling
Open Weight
License
Claude Mythos 5
Proprietary
Inkling
Open Weight
Release date
Claude Mythos 5
2026-06-09
Inkling
2026-07-15
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
- Claude Mythos 5 has the higher public score, 83.4 versus 67.02, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.65 vs $0.10754. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.9 vs $0.159.
- Context tradeoff
- Both models list 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 evidence20 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Mythos 588%SourceInkling63.8%SourceClaude Mythos 5 leads this result
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Mythos 585%SourceInkling—Not directly comparable
BrowseComp
Claude Mythos 588%SourceInkling77.1%SourceClaude Mythos 5 leads this result
CyberGym
Claude Mythos 583.8%SourceInkling—Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Claude Mythos 5—Inkling74.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
Knowledge
GPQA
Claude Mythos 594.1%SourceInkling87.9%SourceClaude Mythos 5 leads this result
HLE
Claude Mythos 564.5%SourceInkling46%SourceClaude Mythos 5 leads this result
HLE w/o tools
Claude Mythos 559%SourceInkling30%SourceClaude Mythos 5 leads this result
GPQA-D
Claude Mythos 5—Inkling87.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
Multilingual
SWE Multilingual
Claude Mythos 592.2%SourceInkling—Not directly comparable
Multimodal
SWE-bench Multimodal
Claude Mythos 554.9%SourceInkling—Not directly comparable
CharXiv
Claude Mythos 593.5%SourceInkling82%SourceClaude Mythos 5 leads this result
CharXiv w/o tools
Claude Mythos 588.9%SourceInkling78.1%SourceClaude Mythos 5 leads this result
MMMU-Pro
Claude Mythos 5—Inkling73.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Instruction following
IFBench
Claude Mythos 5—Inkling79.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Claude Mythos 5 or Inkling?
Claude Mythos 5 has the higher public score, 83.4 versus 67.02, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap. That is the clearest overall quality signal in the current public data.
Which is better for coding, Claude Mythos 5 or Inkling?
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 Inkling?
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 Inkling?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.035 on Claude Mythos 5 and $0.00421 on Inkling; repository review costs $0.65 and $0.10754; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.9 and $0.159. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Which has the larger context window, Claude Mythos 5 or Inkling?
Both models list the same context window, 1M.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 29, 2026
Watch Claude Mythos 5 vs Inkling
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.