Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Claude Mythos Preview
99
Composer 2.5
82
Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Mythos Preview #1 · Composer 2.5 unranked
Pick Claude Mythos Preview if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Composer 2.5 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Agentic
+13.1 difference
Claude Mythos Preview
Composer 2.5
$25 / $125
$0.5 / $2.5
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1M
200K
Pick Claude Mythos Preview if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Composer 2.5 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Claude Mythos Preview is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 99 to 82. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Mythos Preview's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 82.4 against 69.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 82% to 69.3%.
Claude Mythos Preview is also the more expensive model on tokens at $25.00 input / $125.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.50 input / $2.50 output per 1M tokens for Composer 2.5. That is roughly 50.0x on output cost alone. Claude Mythos Preview gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for Composer 2.5.
Claude Mythos Preview is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 99 to 82. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 82% and 69.3%.
Claude Mythos Preview has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 82.4 versus 69.3. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 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.