Model comparison
Claude Mythos 5 vs Gemini 3.1 Pro
Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
BenchAlign evidence: Claude Mythos 5 supported; Gemini 3.1 Pro estimated. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Mythos 5 and Gemini 3.1 Pro share 2 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 13 results are unique to Claude Mythos 5; 46 to Gemini 3.1 Pro.
Updated July 15, 2026- Shared results
- 2
- Claude Mythos 5 only
- 13
- Gemini 3.1 Pro only
- 46
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick Claude Mythos 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemini 3.1 Pro only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 2 shared benchmark results across 2 evidence categories; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Claude Mythos 5 finishes one point ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 89 to 88. That is enough to call, but not enough to treat as a blowout. This matchup comes down to a few meaningful edges rather than one model dominating the board.
Claude Mythos 5's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 99.8 against 31.8. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is CharXiv, 93.5% to 80.2%.
Claude Mythos 5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $10.00 input / $50.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $2.00 input / $12.00 output per 1M tokens for Gemini 3.1 Pro. That is roughly 4.2x on output cost alone. Claude Mythos 5 gives you the larger context window at 1M+, compared with 1M for Gemini 3.1 Pro.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Claude Mythos 5 | Δ | Gemini 3.1 Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Claude Mythos 599.8 | Margin← 68.0 | Gemini 3.1 Pro31.8 |
| Multimodal | Claude Mythos 593.5 | Margin← 10.9 | Gemini 3.1 Pro82.6 |
| Agentic | Claude Mythos 587.0 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3.1 ProNot measured |
| Coding | Claude Mythos 589.7 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3.1 ProNot measured |
| Reasoning | Claude Mythos 5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3.1 Pro77.1 |
| Knowledge | Claude Mythos 568.5 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3.1 ProNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
CharXiv
MultimodalA 93.5%B 80.2%Winner: Claude Mythos 5Δ 13.3CharXiv: Claude Mythos 5 scored 93.5%; Gemini 3.1 Pro scored 80.2%. Claude Mythos 5 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Mythos 5 | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Mythos 5$10 input / $50 output | Gemini 3.1 Pro$2 input / $12 output | Gemini 3.1 Pro has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Mythos 5Not available | Gemini 3.1 Pro109 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Mythos 5Not available | Gemini 3.1 Pro29.71 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Mythos 51M+ | Gemini 3.1 Pro1M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic18 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Mythos 5 | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 88% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 85% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 88% | — | Not comparable |
| ExploitGymSource | 17.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 57.8% | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | — | 69.7% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 95.6% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 21.4% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 32.0% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 23.1% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 962 | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 49.91% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 13.3% | Not comparable |
| AA AutomationBenchSource | — | 37.5% | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | — | 42.2% | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | — | 0.0% | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | — | 30.3% | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | — | 16.5% | Not comparable |
Coding10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Mythos 5 | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 95.5% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 80.3% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 88.0% | — | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench ProSource | — | 82.9% | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | — | 78.9% | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | — | 32.03% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 68.8% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | — | 53.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | — | 58.9% | Not comparable |
| AA Terminal-Bench 2.1Source | — | 73.8% | Not comparable |
Reasoning3 benchmarks
Knowledge12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Mythos 5 | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 94.1% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 64.5% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 59% | 45.4% | Claude Mythos 5 leads |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 94.3% | Not comparable |
| HealthBench HardSource | — | 20.6% | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (Text)Source | — | 71.5% | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 46.5% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 94.1% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 44.7% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | 32.9% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 55.3% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 49.9% | Not comparable |
MathClaude Mythos 5 wins3 benchmarks
Multilingual2 benchmarks
MultimodalClaude Mythos 5 wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Mythos 5 | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench MultimodalSource | 54.9% | — | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | 93.5% | 80.2% | Claude Mythos 5 leads |
| CharXiv w/o toolsSource | 88.9% | — | Not comparable |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 83.9% | Not comparable |
| ERQASource | — | 69.4% | Not comparable |
| SimpleVQASource | — | 72.4% | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | — | 84.4% | Not comparable |
| ZeroBenchSource | — | 29.0% | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (MM)Source | — | 81.3% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1320 | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 82.4% | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | — | 1285 | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Mythos 5 | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 77.1% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Claude Mythos 5 or Gemini 3.1 Pro?
Claude Mythos 5 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 89 to 88. The biggest single separator in this matchup is CharXiv, where the scores are 93.5% and 80.2%.
Which is better for math, Claude Mythos 5 or Gemini 3.1 Pro?
Claude Mythos 5 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 99.8 versus 31.8. Gemini 3.1 Pro stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Mythos 5 or Gemini 3.1 Pro?
Claude Mythos 5 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 93.5 versus 82.6. Inside this category, CharXiv is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
The AI models change fast. We track them for you.
A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.