Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Claude Mythos 5
99
Step 3.7 Flash
71
Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Mythos 5 #1 · Step 3.7 Flash unranked
Pick Claude Mythos 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Step 3.7 Flash only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Agentic
+21.1 difference
Coding
+29.6 difference
Claude Mythos 5
Step 3.7 Flash
$10 / $50
$0.2 / $1.15
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1M+
256K
Pick Claude Mythos 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Step 3.7 Flash only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Claude Mythos 5 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 99 to 71. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Mythos 5's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 85.9 against 56.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 88% to 59.5%.
Claude Mythos 5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $10.00 input / $50.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.20 input / $1.15 output per 1M tokens for Step 3.7 Flash. That is roughly 43.5x on output cost alone. Claude Mythos 5 gives you the larger context window at 1M+, compared with 256K for Step 3.7 Flash.
Claude Mythos 5 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 99 to 71. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 88% and 59.5%.
Claude Mythos 5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 85.9 versus 56.3. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Claude Mythos 5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 87 versus 65.9. Inside this category, GDPval-AA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.