Head-to-head comparison across 1 benchmark categories
Claude Mythos Preview
84
GPT-4.1 nano
45
Pick Claude Mythos Preview if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-4.1 nano only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Knowledge
+24.6 difference
Claude Mythos Preview
GPT-4.1 nano
$25 / $125
$0.1 / $0.4
N/A
181 t/s
N/A
0.63s
1M
1M
Pick Claude Mythos Preview if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-4.1 nano only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Claude Mythos Preview is clearly ahead on the aggregate, 84 to 45. 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 knowledge, where it averages 74.9 against 50.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 94.5% to 50.3%.
Claude Mythos Preview is also the more expensive model on tokens at $25.00 input / $125.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.10 input / $0.40 output per 1M tokens for GPT-4.1 nano. That is roughly 312.5x on output cost alone. Claude Mythos Preview is the reasoning model in the pair, while GPT-4.1 nano is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use.
Claude Mythos Preview is ahead overall, 84 to 45. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 94.5% and 50.3%.
Claude Mythos Preview has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 74.9 versus 50.3. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Get notified when new models drop, benchmark scores change, or the leaderboard shifts. One email per week.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime. We only store derived location metadata for consent routing.