Agentic
Not comparable- Claude Mythos 5
- Not ranked
- Ternary Bonsai 2 27B
- 49.9
- Estimated · #59/154
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 4 vs 3 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Claude Mythos 5 vs Ternary Bonsai 2 27B
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.
2 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Updated September 18, 2026. We do not rank this pair: at least one has no public score. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
Both of these models will change. Get the price, version and retirement notices for the pair, each with its source. Follow model changes
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
Show secondary and unsupported calls
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
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
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
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.
13 Claude Mythos 5 only
2 Shared
19 Ternary Bonsai 2 27B only
- Shared results
- 2
- Claude Mythos 5 only
- 13
- Ternary Bonsai 2 27B only
- 19
- 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
- Ternary Bonsai 2 27B
- 49.9
- Estimated · #64/154
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 3 vs 4 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude Mythos 5
- Not ranked
- Ternary Bonsai 2 27B
- 73.9
- Unranked · 1 rankable row
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Claude Mythos 5
- Not ranked
- Ternary Bonsai 2 27B
- 50.6
- Estimated · #78/184
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 3 vs 3 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude Mythos 5
- Not ranked
- Ternary Bonsai 2 27B
- 76.8
- Unranked · 4 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Mythos 5
- Not ranked
- Ternary Bonsai 2 27B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Claude Mythos 5
- 85.1
- Unranked · 3 rankable rows
- Ternary Bonsai 2 27B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude Mythos 5
- Not ranked
- Ternary Bonsai 2 27B
- 71.0
- #64/124
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Mythos 5 | Ternary Bonsai 2 27B | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Not ranked | 49.9Estimated · #59/154 | Not comparableBenchAlign lane · 4 vs 3 public rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | Not ranked | 49.9Estimated · #64/154 | Not comparableBenchAlign lane · 3 vs 4 public rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not ranked | 73.9Unranked · 1 rankable row | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not ranked | 50.6Estimated · #78/184 | Not comparableBenchAlign lane · 3 vs 3 public rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | 76.8Unranked · 4 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 85.1Unranked · 3 rankable rows | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | 71.0#64/124 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 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.
SWE-bench Verified
Coding
Claude Mythos 5: 95.5%Ternary Bonsai 2 27B: 60.8%Normalized gap 34.7Claude Mythos 5 source Ternary Bonsai 2 27B sourceGPQA
Knowledge
Claude Mythos 5: 94.1%Ternary Bonsai 2 27B: 85.8%Normalized gap 8.3Claude Mythos 5 source Ternary Bonsai 2 27B 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
- Ternary Bonsai 2 27B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Ternary Bonsai 2 27B has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Claude Mythos 5
- $0.65
- Fits in one request
- Ternary Bonsai 2 27B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Ternary Bonsai 2 27B 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
- Ternary Bonsai 2 27B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
Ternary Bonsai 2 27B 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 5Ternary Bonsai 2 27B
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Mythos 5
Ternary Bonsai 2 27B
API model ID
Claude Mythos 5
claude-mythos-5
Anthropic model overviewTernary Bonsai 2 27B
prism-ml/Ternary-Bonsai-2-27B-gguf
PrismML Bonsai 2 collectionCached-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 pricingTernary Bonsai 2 27B
No comparable hosted API rate
PrismML Bonsai 2 collectionDocumented inputs
Claude Mythos 5
text, image
Anthropic model overviewTernary Bonsai 2 27B
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Claude Mythos 5
Ternary Bonsai 2 27B
Not sourced
Provider availability
Claude Mythos 5
Limited Access · Claude API
Anthropic model overviewTernary Bonsai 2 27B
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Claude Mythos 5
Reasoning
Ternary Bonsai 2 27B
Reasoning
Weight access
Claude Mythos 5
Proprietary
Ternary Bonsai 2 27B
Open Weight
License
Claude Mythos 5
Proprietary
Ternary Bonsai 2 27B
Open Weight
Release date
Claude Mythos 5
2026-06-09
Ternary Bonsai 2 27B
2026-09-17
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 evidence34 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Mythos 588%SourceTernary Bonsai 2 27B—Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Mythos 585%SourceTernary Bonsai 2 27B—Not directly comparable
BrowseComp
Claude Mythos 588%SourceTernary Bonsai 2 27B—Not directly comparable
CyberGym
Claude Mythos 583.8%SourceTernary Bonsai 2 27B—Not directly comparable
τ²-bench results
Claude Mythos 5—Ternary Bonsai 2 27B80.2%SourceNot directly comparable
BFCL v3
Claude Mythos 5—Ternary Bonsai 2 27B74.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Claude Mythos 5—Ternary Bonsai 2 27B52.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Claude Mythos 595.5%SourceTernary Bonsai 2 27B60.8%SourceClaude Mythos 5 leads this result
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Mythos 580.3%SourceTernary Bonsai 2 27B—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Mythos 588.0%SourceTernary Bonsai 2 27B—Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench v6
Claude Mythos 5—Ternary Bonsai 2 27B90.1%SourceNot directly comparable
BigCodeBench
Claude Mythos 5—Ternary Bonsai 2 27B58.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Claude Mythos 5—Ternary Bonsai 2 27B52.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
GPQA
Claude Mythos 594.1%SourceTernary Bonsai 2 27B85.8%SourceClaude Mythos 5 leads this result
HLE
Claude Mythos 564.5%SourceTernary Bonsai 2 27B—Not directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Claude Mythos 559%SourceTernary Bonsai 2 27B—Not directly comparable
MMLU-Redux
Claude Mythos 5—Ternary Bonsai 2 27B89.1%SourceNot directly comparable
GPQA-D
Claude Mythos 5—Ternary Bonsai 2 27B85.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
USAMO 2026
Claude Mythos 597.6%SourceTernary Bonsai 2 27B—Not directly comparable
GSM8K
Claude Mythos 5—Ternary Bonsai 2 27B96.7%SourceNot directly comparable
MATH-500
Claude Mythos 5—Ternary Bonsai 2 27B98.8%SourceNot directly comparable
AIME 2025
Claude Mythos 5—Ternary Bonsai 2 27B95%SourceNot directly comparable
AIME26
Claude Mythos 5—Ternary Bonsai 2 27B95.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Multilingual
SWE Multilingual
Claude Mythos 592.2%SourceTernary Bonsai 2 27B—Not directly comparable
Multimodal
SWE-bench Multimodal
Claude Mythos 554.9%SourceTernary Bonsai 2 27B—Not directly comparable
CharXiv
Claude Mythos 593.5%SourceTernary Bonsai 2 27B—Not directly comparable
CharXiv w/o tools
Claude Mythos 588.9%SourceTernary Bonsai 2 27B—Not directly comparable
CharXiv (overall)
Claude Mythos 5—Ternary Bonsai 2 27B80.0%SourceNot directly comparable
A-OKVQA
Claude Mythos 5—Ternary Bonsai 2 27B86.8%SourceNot directly comparable
OmniDocBench 1.6
Claude Mythos 5—Ternary Bonsai 2 27B89.1%SourceNot directly comparable
RealWorldQA
Claude Mythos 5—Ternary Bonsai 2 27B80.1%SourceNot directly comparable
OCRBench V2
Claude Mythos 5—Ternary Bonsai 2 27B56.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Instruction following
Questions
Which is better, Claude Mythos 5 or Ternary Bonsai 2 27B?
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 Ternary Bonsai 2 27B?
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 Ternary Bonsai 2 27B?
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 Ternary Bonsai 2 27B?
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 Ternary Bonsai 2 27B?
Claude Mythos 5 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 262K.
Related comparisons
Last updated September 18, 2026
Watch Claude Mythos 5 vs Ternary Bonsai 2 27B
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.