Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Mythos 5 vs GLM-4.7

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 5 shared benchmark results across 3 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

83.93/100
Margin
22.8pts
← winning
61.16/100
4 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Mythos 5 #1 (Supported); GLM-4.7 #42 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Mythos 5 and GLM-4.7 share 5 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 10 results are unique to Claude Mythos 5; 25 to GLM-4.7.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
5
Claude Mythos 5 only
10
GLM-4.7 only
25
Comparable categories
4 / 8

Pick Claude Mythos 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GLM-4.7 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 5 shared benchmark results across 3 evidence categories; 4 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 61.16. 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 1.8. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 88% to 41%.

Claude Mythos 5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $10.00 input / $50.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for GLM-4.7. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Claude Mythos 5 gives you the larger context window at 1M+, compared with 200K for GLM-4.7.

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 scores and score margins for Claude Mythos 5 and GLM-4.7
CategoryClaude Mythos 5ΔGLM-4.7
MathClaude Mythos 597.6Margin← 95.8GLM-4.71.8
AgenticClaude Mythos 587.0Margin← 41.3GLM-4.745.7
KnowledgeClaude Mythos 568.5Margin← 16.7GLM-4.751.8
CodingClaude Mythos 589.7Margin← 14.3GLM-4.775.4
MultimodalClaude Mythos 593.5MarginNo overlapGLM-4.7Not measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Claude Mythos 5B · GLM-4.7

  1. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 88%B 41%
    Winner: Claude Mythos 5Δ 47
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Mythos 5 scored 88%; GLM-4.7 scored 41%. Claude Mythos 5 wins this benchmark.

  2. HLE

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 64.5%B 24.8%
    Winner: Claude Mythos 5Δ 39.7
    HLE: Claude Mythos 5 scored 64.5%; GLM-4.7 scored 24.8%. Claude Mythos 5 wins this benchmark.

  3. BrowseComp

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 88%B 52%
    Winner: Claude Mythos 5Δ 36
    BrowseComp: Claude Mythos 5 scored 88%; GLM-4.7 scored 52%. Claude Mythos 5 wins this benchmark.

  4. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 95.5%B 73.8%
    Winner: Claude Mythos 5Δ 21.7
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude Mythos 5 scored 95.5%; GLM-4.7 scored 73.8%. Claude Mythos 5 wins this benchmark.

  5. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 94.1%B 85.7%
    Winner: Claude Mythos 5Δ 8.4
    GPQA: Claude Mythos 5 scored 94.1%; GLM-4.7 scored 85.7%. Claude Mythos 5 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricClaude Mythos 5GLM-4.7Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Mythos 5$10 input / $50 outputGLM-4.7$0 input / $0 outputGLM-4.7 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Mythos 5Not availableGLM-4.782 tok/sA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Mythos 5Not availableGLM-4.71.10 sA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Mythos 51M+GLM-4.7200KClaude Mythos 5 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticClaude Mythos 5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Mythos 5GLM-4.7Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 88%41%Claude Mythos 5 leads
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 85%—Not comparable
BrowseCompSource 88%52%Claude Mythos 5 leads
ExploitGymSource 17.5%—Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource —15.5%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —25.4%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource —95.9%Not comparable
Gert LabsSource —39.95%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —33.3%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —1165Not comparable
CodingClaude Mythos 5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Mythos 5GLM-4.7Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 95.5%73.8%Claude Mythos 5 leads
SWE-bench ProSource 80.3%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 88.0%—Not comparable
LiveCodeBenchSource —84.9%Not comparable
SWE-RebenchSource —58.7%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —45.3%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource —45.1%Not comparable
AA LiveCodeBenchSource —89.4%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Mythos 5GLM-4.7Result
AA-LCRSource —64.0%Not comparable
CritPtSource —1.7%Not comparable
KnowledgeClaude Mythos 5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Mythos 5GLM-4.7Result
GPQASource 94.1%85.7%Claude Mythos 5 leads
HLESource 64.5%24.8%Claude Mythos 5 leads
HLE w/o toolsSource 59%—Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource —84.3%Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource —33.7%Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource —85.9%Not comparable
AA-HLESource —25.1%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource —-34.6%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource —29.3%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource —90.3%Not comparable
MathClaude Mythos 5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Mythos 5GLM-4.7Result
USAMO 2026Source 97.6%—Not comparable
AIME 2025Source —95.7%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source —2.439%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source —0.000%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude Mythos 5GLM-4.7Result
SWE MultilingualSource 92.2%—Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Mythos 5GLM-4.7Result
SWE-bench MultimodalSource 54.9%—Not comparable
CharXivSource 93.5%—Not comparable
CharXiv w/o toolsSource 88.9%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource —1255Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Mythos 5GLM-4.7Result
AA-IFBenchSource —67.9%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (5)

Which is better, Claude Mythos 5 or GLM-4.7?

Claude Mythos 5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 83.93 to 61.16. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 88% and 41%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Mythos 5 or GLM-4.7?

Claude Mythos 5 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 68.5 versus 51.8. Inside this category, HLE is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, Claude Mythos 5 or GLM-4.7?

Claude Mythos 5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 89.7 versus 75.4. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

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

Claude Mythos 5 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 97.6 versus 1.8. GLM-4.7 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Mythos 5 or GLM-4.7?

Claude Mythos 5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 87 versus 45.7. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

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.