Agentic
Not comparable- Claude Mythos 5
- Not ranked
- Kimi K2.5
- 46.0
- Estimated · #90/151
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 4 vs 14 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Claude Mythos 5 vs Kimi K2.5
Updated September 4, 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.
6 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Share or export
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
Kimi K2.5
Kimi K2.5 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
Kimi K2.5
Kimi K2.5 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Kimi K2.5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Kimi K2.5
Kimi K2.5 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
Claude Mythos 5 is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Claude Mythos 5 is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.
Confidence: limited
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
9 Claude Mythos 5 only
6 Shared
39 Kimi K2.5 only
- Shared results
- 6
- Claude Mythos 5 only
- 9
- Kimi K2.5 only
- 39
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
Coding
Not comparable- Claude Mythos 5
- Not ranked
- Kimi K2.5
- 51.5
- Estimated · #64/183
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 3 vs 8 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude Mythos 5
- Not ranked
- Kimi K2.5
- 53.5
- Unranked · 3 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Claude Mythos 5
- Not ranked
- Kimi K2.5
- 53.1
- Estimated · #70/181
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 3 vs 6 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude Mythos 5
- Not ranked
- Kimi K2.5
- 62.4
- #5/7
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 4 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Mythos 5
- Not ranked
- Kimi K2.5
- 38.2
- #8/12
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Claude Mythos 5
- 85.1
- Unranked · 3 rankable rows
- Kimi K2.5
- 65.7
- #24/48
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude Mythos 5
- Not ranked
- Kimi K2.5
- 85.6
- #40/120
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Mythos 5 | Kimi K2.5 | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Not ranked | 46.0Estimated · #90/151 | Not comparableBenchAlign lane · 4 vs 14 public rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | Not ranked | 51.5Estimated · #64/183 | Not comparableBenchAlign lane · 3 vs 8 public rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not ranked | 53.5Unranked · 3 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not ranked | 53.1Estimated · #70/181 | Not comparableBenchAlign lane · 3 vs 6 public rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | 62.4#5/7 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 4 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | 38.2#8/12 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 85.1Unranked · 3 rankable rows | 65.7#24/48 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | 85.6#40/120 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
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.
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Agentic
HLE
Knowledge
SWE-bench Pro
Coding
BrowseComp
Agentic
SWE-bench Verified
Coding
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
- Kimi K2.5
- $0.0021
- Fits in one request
Kimi K2.5 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
- Kimi K2.5
- $0.039
- Fits in one request
Kimi K2.5 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
- Kimi K2.5
- $0.162
- Fits in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Kimi K2.5 has the lower modeled cost
Kimi K2.5 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.
SpecificationClaude Mythos 5Kimi K2.5
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Mythos 5
Kimi K2.5
256K
API model ID
Claude Mythos 5
claude-mythos-5
Anthropic model overviewKimi K2.5
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 pricingKimi K2.5
Not published
Documented inputs
Claude Mythos 5
text, image
Anthropic model overviewKimi K2.5
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Claude Mythos 5
Kimi K2.5
Not sourced
Provider availability
Claude Mythos 5
Limited Access · Claude API
Anthropic model overviewKimi K2.5
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Claude Mythos 5
Reasoning
Kimi K2.5
Non-Reasoning
Weight access
Claude Mythos 5
Proprietary
Kimi K2.5
Open Weight
License
Claude Mythos 5
Proprietary
Kimi K2.5
Open Weight
Release date
Claude Mythos 5
2026-06-09
Kimi K2.5
2026-02-01
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 $0.039. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.9 vs $0.162.
- Context tradeoff
- Claude Mythos 5 has the larger documented window (1M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
Claude Mythos 5
API / mo$45,000
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even—
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
Kimi K2.5
API / mo$2,700
Self-host / mo$5,221
Break-even132M/day
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence54 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Mythos 588%SourceKimi K2.550.8%SourceClaude Mythos 5 leads this result
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Mythos 585%SourceKimi K2.5—Not directly comparable
BrowseComp
Claude Mythos 588%SourceKimi K2.560.6%SourceClaude Mythos 5 leads this result
CyberGym
Claude Mythos 583.8%SourceKimi K2.5—Not directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Claude Mythos 5—Kimi K2.552.3%SourceNot directly comparable
QwenClawBench
Claude Mythos 5—Kimi K2.554.3%SourceNot directly comparable
τ³-bench results
Claude Mythos 5—Kimi K2.565.7%SourceNot directly comparable
DeepSearchQA
Claude Mythos 5—Kimi K2.577.1%SourceNot directly comparable
DeepPlanning
Claude Mythos 5—Kimi K2.514.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon
Claude Mythos 5—Kimi K2.527.8%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Claude Mythos 5—Kimi K2.529.5%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP-Tasks
Claude Mythos 5—Kimi K2.559.1%SourceNot directly comparable
WideResearch
Claude Mythos 5—Kimi K2.572.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Gert Labs
Claude Mythos 5—Kimi K2.545.88%SourceNot directly comparable
ResearchClawBench
Claude Mythos 5—Kimi K2.514.0%SourceNot directly comparable
JobBench
Claude Mythos 5—Kimi K2.58.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Claude Mythos 595.5%SourceKimi K2.576.8%SourceClaude Mythos 5 leads this result
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Mythos 580.3%SourceKimi K2.550.7%SourceClaude Mythos 5 leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Mythos 588.0%SourceKimi K2.5—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified*
Claude Mythos 5—Kimi K2.570.8%SourceNot directly comparable
LiveCodeBench v6
Claude Mythos 5—Kimi K2.585.0%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
Claude Mythos 5—Kimi K2.573%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE-Rebench
Claude Mythos 5—Kimi K2.558.5%SourceNot directly comparable
React Native Evals
Claude Mythos 5—Kimi K2.577.2%SourceNot directly comparable
SciCode
Claude Mythos 5—Kimi K2.548.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
LongBench v2
Claude Mythos 5—Kimi K2.561%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
GPQA
Claude Mythos 594.1%SourceKimi K2.587.6%SourceClaude Mythos 5 leads this result
HLE
Claude Mythos 564.5%SourceKimi K2.530.1%SourceClaude Mythos 5 leads this result
HLE w/o tools
Claude Mythos 559%SourceKimi K2.5—Not directly comparable
GPQA-D
Claude Mythos 5—Kimi K2.587.6%SourceNot directly comparable
SuperGPQA
Claude Mythos 5—Kimi K2.569.2%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
Claude Mythos 5—Kimi K2.587.1%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Arcee)
Claude Mythos 5—Kimi K2.587.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
USAMO 2026
Claude Mythos 597.6%SourceKimi K2.5—Not directly comparable
AIME 2025
Claude Mythos 5—Kimi K2.596.1%SourceNot directly comparable
AIME26
Claude Mythos 5—Kimi K2.595.8%SourceNot directly comparable
AIME25 (Arcee)
Claude Mythos 5—Kimi K2.596.3%SourceNot directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2025
Claude Mythos 5—Kimi K2.595.4%SourceNot directly comparable
HMMT Nov 2025
Claude Mythos 5—Kimi K2.591.1%SourceNot directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2026
Claude Mythos 5—Kimi K2.587.1%SourceNot directly comparable
MMAnswerBench
Claude Mythos 5—Kimi K2.581.8%SourceNot directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Claude Mythos 5—Kimi K2.527.900%SourceNot directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Claude Mythos 5—Kimi K2.54.200%SourceNot directly comparable
Multilingual
Multimodal
SWE-bench Multimodal
Claude Mythos 554.9%SourceKimi K2.5—Not directly comparable
CharXiv
Claude Mythos 593.5%SourceKimi K2.5—Not directly comparable
CharXiv w/o tools
Claude Mythos 588.9%SourceKimi K2.5—Not directly comparable
MMMU-Pro
Claude Mythos 5—Kimi K2.578.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Video-MME
Claude Mythos 5—Kimi K2.587.4%SourceNot directly comparable
MMVU
Claude Mythos 5—Kimi K2.580.4%SourceNot directly comparable
VideoMMMU
Claude Mythos 5—Kimi K2.586.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Instruction following
IFEval
Claude Mythos 5—Kimi K2.593.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Claude Mythos 5 or Kimi K2.5?
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 Kimi K2.5?
Claude Mythos 5 is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Mythos 5 or Kimi K2.5?
Claude Mythos 5 is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.
Which costs less, Claude Mythos 5 or Kimi K2.5?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.035 on Claude Mythos 5 and $0.0021 on Kimi K2.5; repository review costs $0.65 and $0.039; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.9 and $0.162. Kimi K2.5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, Claude Mythos 5 or Kimi K2.5?
Claude Mythos 5 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 256K.
Related comparisons
Last updated September 4, 2026
Watch Claude Mythos 5 vs Kimi K2.5
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.