Knowledge
Like-for-like- Claude Mythos 5
- 68.5
- Inkling-Small
- 53.4
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Claude Mythos 5 leads
Model comparison
Claude Mythos 5 vs Inkling-Small
Updated July 30, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
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.
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Inkling-Small
Inkling-Small 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-Small
Inkling-Small 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-Small
Inkling-Small 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
The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
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
10 Inkling-Small only
- Shared results
- 10
- Claude Mythos 5 only
- 5
- Inkling-Small only
- 10
- Like-for-like categories
- 1 / 8
3 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
- Inkling-Small
- 70.1
- Weighted basis
- 3 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Coding
Directional only- Claude Mythos 5
- 89.7
- Inkling-Small
- 62.4
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 3 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Multimodal
Directional only- Claude Mythos 5
- 93.5
- Inkling-Small
- 76.6
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude Mythos 5
- Not measured
- Inkling-Small
- 40.1
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude Mythos 5
- 97.6
- Inkling-Small
- 92.9
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Mythos 5
- Not measured
- Inkling-Small
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude Mythos 5
- Not measured
- Inkling-Small
- 82.2
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Mythos 5 | Inkling-Small | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | 68.5 | 53.4 | Like-for-like2 vs 2 rows | Claude Mythos 5 leads |
| Agentic | 87.0 | 70.1 | Directional only3 vs 2 rows | Directional only |
| Coding | 89.7 | 62.4 | Directional only2 vs 3 rows | Directional only |
| Multimodal | 93.5 | 76.6 | Directional only1 vs 2 rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | Not measured | 40.1 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 97.6 | 92.9 | Not comparable1 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | 82.2 | 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
Claude Mythos 5: 80.3%Inkling-Small: 55.9%Normalized gap 24.4Claude Mythos 5 source Inkling-Small sourceTerminal-Bench 2.0
Agentic
Claude Mythos 5: 88%Inkling-Small: 64.7%Normalized gap 23.3Claude Mythos 5 source Inkling-Small sourceHLE
Knowledge
Claude Mythos 5: 64.5%Inkling-Small: 47.8%Normalized gap 16.7Claude Mythos 5 source Inkling-Small sourceSWE-bench Verified
Coding
Claude Mythos 5: 95.5%Inkling-Small: 80.2%Normalized gap 15.3Claude Mythos 5 source Inkling-Small sourceCharXiv
Multimodal
Claude Mythos 5: 93.5%Inkling-Small: 81.3%Normalized gap 12.2Claude Mythos 5 source Inkling-Small 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
- Inkling-Small
- $0.0013
- Fits in one request
Inkling-Small 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-Small
- $0.03332
- Fits in one request
Inkling-Small 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-Small
- $0.0492
- Fits in one request
Inkling-Small 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-Small
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Mythos 5
Inkling-Small
1M
API model ID
Claude Mythos 5
claude-mythos-5
Anthropic model overviewInkling-Small
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-Small
$0.116 per 1M cached input tokens
Documented inputs
Claude Mythos 5
text, image
Anthropic model overviewInkling-Small
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Claude Mythos 5
Inkling-Small
Not sourced
Provider availability
Claude Mythos 5
Limited Access · Claude API
Anthropic model overviewInkling-Small
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Claude Mythos 5
Reasoning
Inkling-Small
Hybrid
Weight access
Claude Mythos 5
Proprietary
Inkling-Small
Open Weight
License
Claude Mythos 5
Proprietary
Inkling-Small
Open Weight
Release date
Claude Mythos 5
2026-06-09
Inkling-Small
2026-07-30
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
- Repository review: $0.65 vs $0.03332. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.9 vs $0.0492.
- 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 evidence25 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Mythos 588%SourceInkling-Small64.7%SourceClaude Mythos 5 leads this result
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Mythos 585%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
BrowseComp
Claude Mythos 588%SourceInkling-Small77.4%SourceClaude Mythos 5 leads this result
ExploitGym
Claude Mythos 517.5%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Claude Mythos 5—Inkling-Small79.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
Claude Mythos 5—Inkling-Small54.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Claude Mythos 595.5%SourceInkling-Small80.2%SourceClaude Mythos 5 leads this result
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Mythos 580.3%SourceInkling-Small55.9%SourceClaude Mythos 5 leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Mythos 588.0%SourceInkling-Small64.7%SourceClaude Mythos 5 leads this result
SciCode
Claude Mythos 5—Inkling-Small48.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Knowledge
GPQA
Claude Mythos 594.1%SourceInkling-Small89.5%SourceClaude Mythos 5 leads this result
HLE
Claude Mythos 564.5%SourceInkling-Small47.8%SourceClaude Mythos 5 leads this result
HLE w/o tools
Claude Mythos 559%SourceInkling-Small31.6%SourceClaude Mythos 5 leads this result
GPQA-D
Claude Mythos 5—Inkling-Small89.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
Multilingual
SWE Multilingual
Claude Mythos 592.2%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
Multimodal
SWE-bench Multimodal
Claude Mythos 554.9%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
CharXiv
Claude Mythos 593.5%SourceInkling-Small81.3%SourceClaude Mythos 5 leads this result
CharXiv w/o tools
Claude Mythos 588.9%SourceInkling-Small77.4%SourceClaude Mythos 5 leads this result
MMMU-Pro
Claude Mythos 5—Inkling-Small74%SourceNot directly comparable
Instruction following
IFBench
Claude Mythos 5—Inkling-Small82.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Claude Mythos 5 or Inkling-Small?
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 Inkling-Small?
The current coding 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 is better for agentic tasks, Claude Mythos 5 or Inkling-Small?
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-Small?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.035 on Claude Mythos 5 and $0.0013 on Inkling-Small; repository review costs $0.65 and $0.03332; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.9 and $0.0492. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Which has the larger context window, Claude Mythos 5 or Inkling-Small?
Both models list the same context window, 1M.
Related comparisons
Last updated July 30, 2026
Watch Claude Mythos 5 vs Inkling-Small
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.