Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Mythos 5 vs Claude Opus 4.7

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 0 shared benchmark results across 0 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

No sourced benchmark result is currently shared by both models. This page therefore compares only the available metadata, pricing, and runtime rows; it does not name a quality winner.
83.93/100
Margin
12.0pts
← winning
71.94/100
1 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Mythos 5 #1 (Supported); Claude Opus 4.7 #12 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Mythos 5 and Claude Opus 4.7 share 0 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 15 results are unique to Claude Mythos 5; 21 to Claude Opus 4.7.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
0
Claude Mythos 5 only
15
Claude Opus 4.7 only
21
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick Claude Mythos 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Opus 4.7 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.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 0 shared benchmark results across 0 evidence categories; 1 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 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 83.93 to 71.94. 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 mathematics, where it averages 97.6 against 38.6.

Claude Mythos 5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $10.00 input / $50.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens for Claude Opus 4.7. That is roughly 2.0x on output cost alone. Claude Mythos 5 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude Opus 4.7 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 5 gives you the larger context window at 1M+, compared with 1M for Claude Opus 4.7.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricClaude Mythos 5Claude Opus 4.7Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Mythos 5$10 input / $50 outputClaude Opus 4.7$5 input / $25 outputClaude Opus 4.7 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Mythos 5Not availableClaude Opus 4.7Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Mythos 5Not availableClaude Opus 4.7Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Mythos 51M+Claude Opus 4.71MClaude Mythos 5 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Mythos 5Claude Opus 4.7Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 88%—Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 85%—Not comparable
BrowseCompSource 88%—Not comparable
ExploitGymSource 17.5%—Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource —74%Not comparable
Gert LabsSource —65.59%Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource —20.7%Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source —13.9%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkClaude Mythos 5Claude Opus 4.7Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 95.5%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 80.3%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 88.0%—Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource —71.00%Not comparable
React Native EvalsSource —82.8%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource —50.1%Not comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource —38.5%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Mythos 5Claude Opus 4.7Result
AA-LCRSource —67.0%Not comparable
CritPtSource —5.1%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Mythos 5Claude Opus 4.7Result
GPQASource 94.1%—Not comparable
HLESource 64.5%—Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource 59%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource —42.7%Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource —88.5%Not comparable
AA-HLESource —31.2%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource —14.2%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource —43.5%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource —51.9%Not comparable
MathClaude Mythos 5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Mythos 5Claude Opus 4.7Result
USAMO 2026Source 97.6%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source —43.793%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source —22.917%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude Mythos 5Claude Opus 4.7Result
SWE MultilingualSource 92.2%—Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Mythos 5Claude Opus 4.7Result
SWE-bench MultimodalSource 54.9%—Not comparable
CharXivSource 93.5%—Not comparable
CharXiv w/o toolsSource 88.9%—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource —76.4%Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource —1325Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Mythos 5Claude Opus 4.7Result
AA-IFBenchSource —43.6%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Claude Mythos 5 or Claude Opus 4.7?

Claude Mythos 5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 83.93 to 71.94.

Which is better for math, Claude Mythos 5 or Claude Opus 4.7?

Claude Mythos 5 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 97.6 versus 38.6. Claude Opus 4.7 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 23, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.