Knowledge
Directional only- Claude Mythos 5
- 68.5
- LFM2.5-230M
- 21.2
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Claude Mythos 5 vs LFM2.5-230M
Updated August 13, 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.
1 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
Show secondary and unsupported calls
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
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
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. LFM2.5-230M does not fit this workload in one request. LFM2.5-230M has no comparable published API token rate.
Confidence: listed-rates
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K 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. LFM2.5-230M does not fit this workload in one request. LFM2.5-230M has no comparable published API token rate.
Confidence: listed-rates
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
14 Claude Mythos 5 only
1 Shared
5 LFM2.5-230M only
- Shared results
- 1
- Claude Mythos 5 only
- 14
- LFM2.5-230M only
- 5
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
1 category uses 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
Not comparable- Claude Mythos 5
- 87.0
- LFM2.5-230M
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 3 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Coding
Not comparable- Claude Mythos 5
- 89.7
- LFM2.5-230M
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude Mythos 5
- Not measured
- LFM2.5-230M
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude Mythos 5
- 97.6
- LFM2.5-230M
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Mythos 5
- Not measured
- LFM2.5-230M
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Claude Mythos 5
- 93.5
- LFM2.5-230M
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude Mythos 5
- Not measured
- LFM2.5-230M
- 50.1
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Mythos 5 | LFM2.5-230M | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | 68.5 | 21.2 | Directional only2 vs 2 rows | Directional only |
| Agentic | 87.0 | Not measured | Not comparable3 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | 89.7 | Not measured | Not comparable2 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 97.6 | Not measured | Not comparable1 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 93.5 | Not measured | Not comparable1 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | 50.1 | Not comparable0 vs 2 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.
GPQA
Knowledge
Claude Mythos 5: 94.1%LFM2.5-230M: 25.4%Normalized gap 68.7Claude Mythos 5 source LFM2.5-230M 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
- LFM2.5-230M
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
LFM2.5-230M has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Claude Mythos 5
- $0.65
- Fits in one request
- LFM2.5-230M
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Does not fit in one request
LFM2.5-230M does not fit this workload in one request. LFM2.5-230M has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Claude Mythos 5
- $0.9
- Fits in one request
- LFM2.5-230M
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
LFM2.5-230M does not fit this workload in one request. LFM2.5-230M has no comparable published API token rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationClaude Mythos 5LFM2.5-230M
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Mythos 5
LFM2.5-230M
32K
API model ID
Claude Mythos 5
claude-mythos-5
Anthropic model overviewLFM2.5-230M
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 pricingLFM2.5-230M
No comparable hosted API rate
Documented inputs
Claude Mythos 5
text, image
Anthropic model overviewLFM2.5-230M
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Claude Mythos 5
LFM2.5-230M
Not sourced
Provider availability
Claude Mythos 5
Limited Access · Claude API
Anthropic model overviewLFM2.5-230M
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Claude Mythos 5
Reasoning
LFM2.5-230M
Non-Reasoning
Weight access
Claude Mythos 5
Proprietary
LFM2.5-230M
Open Weight
License
Claude Mythos 5
Proprietary
LFM2.5-230M
Open Weight
Release date
Claude Mythos 5
2026-06-09
LFM2.5-230M
2026-06-25
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
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- 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 evidence20 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Mythos 588%SourceLFM2.5-230M—Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Mythos 585%SourceLFM2.5-230M—Not directly comparable
BrowseComp
Claude Mythos 588%SourceLFM2.5-230M—Not directly comparable
CyberGym
Claude Mythos 583.8%SourceLFM2.5-230M—Not directly comparable
BFCL v4
Claude Mythos 5—LFM2.5-230M21.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
Knowledge
GPQA
Claude Mythos 594.1%SourceLFM2.5-230M25.4%SourceClaude Mythos 5 leads this result
HLE
Claude Mythos 564.5%SourceLFM2.5-230M—Not directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Claude Mythos 559%SourceLFM2.5-230M—Not directly comparable
GPQA-D
Claude Mythos 5—LFM2.5-230M25.4%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
Claude Mythos 5—LFM2.5-230M20.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
USAMO 2026
Claude Mythos 597.6%SourceLFM2.5-230M—Not directly comparable
Multilingual
SWE Multilingual
Claude Mythos 592.2%SourceLFM2.5-230M—Not directly comparable
Multimodal
Instruction following
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Claude Mythos 5 or LFM2.5-230M?
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 LFM2.5-230M?
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 LFM2.5-230M?
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 LFM2.5-230M?
Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.
Which has the larger context window, Claude Mythos 5 or LFM2.5-230M?
Claude Mythos 5 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 32K.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 13, 2026
Watch Claude Mythos 5 vs LFM2.5-230M
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.