Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Mythos 5 vs Kimi K2.6

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 9 shared benchmark results across 4 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

83.93/100
Margin
27.1pts
← winning
Kimi K2.6
Moonshot AI
56.79/100
5 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Mythos 5 #1 (Supported); Kimi K2.6 #74 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Mythos 5 and Kimi K2.6 share 9 comparable benchmark results. 5 of 8 categories are comparable. 6 results are unique to Claude Mythos 5; 42 to Kimi K2.6.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
9
Claude Mythos 5 only
6
Kimi K2.6 only
42
Comparable categories
5 / 8

Pick Claude Mythos 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Kimi K2.6 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 9 shared benchmark results across 4 evidence categories; 5 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 56.79. 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 67.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 64.5% to 34.7%.

Claude Mythos 5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $10.00 input / $50.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.95 input / $4.00 output per 1M tokens for Kimi K2.6. That is roughly 12.5x on output cost alone. Claude Mythos 5 gives you the larger context window at 1M+, compared with 256K for Kimi K2.6.

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 Kimi K2.6
CategoryClaude Mythos 5ΔKimi K2.6
MathClaude Mythos 597.6Margin← 30.5Kimi K2.667.1
KnowledgeClaude Mythos 568.5Margin← 26.3Kimi K2.642.2
CodingClaude Mythos 589.7Margin← 25.3Kimi K2.664.4
MultimodalClaude Mythos 593.5Margin← 13.7Kimi K2.679.8
AgenticClaude Mythos 587.0Margin← 13.5Kimi K2.673.5

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Mythos 5B · Kimi K2.6

  1. HLE

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 64.5%B 34.7%
    Winner: Claude Mythos 5Δ 29.8
    HLE: Claude Mythos 5 scored 64.5%; Kimi K2.6 scored 34.7%. Claude Mythos 5 wins this benchmark.

  2. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 80.3%B 58.6%
    Winner: Claude Mythos 5Δ 21.7
    SWE-bench Pro: Claude Mythos 5 scored 80.3%; Kimi K2.6 scored 58.6%. Claude Mythos 5 wins this benchmark.

  3. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 88%B 66.7%
    Winner: Claude Mythos 5Δ 21.3
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Mythos 5 scored 88%; Kimi K2.6 scored 66.7%. Claude Mythos 5 wins this benchmark.

  4. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 95.5%B 80.2%
    Winner: Claude Mythos 5Δ 15.3
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude Mythos 5 scored 95.5%; Kimi K2.6 scored 80.2%. Claude Mythos 5 wins this benchmark.

  5. CharXiv

    Multimodal
    Source ↗
    A 93.5%B 80.4%
    Winner: Claude Mythos 5Δ 13.1
    CharXiv: Claude Mythos 5 scored 93.5%; Kimi K2.6 scored 80.4%. 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 5Kimi K2.6Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Mythos 5$10 input / $50 outputKimi K2.6$0.95 input / $4 outputKimi K2.6 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Mythos 5Not availableKimi K2.6Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Mythos 5Not availableKimi K2.6Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Mythos 51M+Kimi K2.6256KClaude Mythos 5 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticClaude Mythos 5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Mythos 5Kimi K2.6Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 88%66.7%Claude Mythos 5 leads
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 85%73.1%Claude Mythos 5 leads
BrowseCompSource 88%83.2%Claude Mythos 5 leads
ExploitGymSource 17.5%—Not comparable
ToolathlonSource —50%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource —55.9%Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource —62.3%Not comparable
DeepSearchQASource —92.5%Not comparable
WideResearchSource —80.8%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —30.3%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource —95.9%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —34.5%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —1189Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource —28.5%Not comparable
Gert LabsSource —56.82%Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource —18.0%Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source —4.6%Not comparable
terminalBenchHardSource —43.9%Not comparable
CodingClaude Mythos 5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Mythos 5Kimi K2.6Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 95.5%80.2%Claude Mythos 5 leads
SWE-bench ProSource 80.3%58.6%Claude Mythos 5 leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 88.0%66.7%Claude Mythos 5 leads
LiveCodeBench v6Source —89.6%Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource —76.7%Not comparable
SciCodeSource —52.2%Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource —37.89%Not comparable
cursorBench31Source —47.6%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —61.8%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource —53.5%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Mythos 5Kimi K2.6Result
AA-LCRSource —69.7%Not comparable
CritPtSource —8.0%Not comparable
KnowledgeClaude Mythos 5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Mythos 5Kimi K2.6Result
GPQASource 94.1%90.5%Claude Mythos 5 leads
HLESource 64.5%34.7%Claude Mythos 5 leads
HLE w/o toolsSource 59%—Not comparable
GPQA-DSource —90.5%Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource —44.2%Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource —91.1%Not comparable
AA-HLESource —35.9%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource —6.4%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource —32.8%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource —39.3%Not comparable
MathClaude Mythos 5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Mythos 5Kimi K2.6Result
USAMO 2026Source 97.6%—Not comparable
AIME26Source —96.4%Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source —92.7%Not comparable
MMAnswerBenchSource —86.0%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source —38.966%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source —14.580%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude Mythos 5Kimi K2.6Result
SWE MultilingualSource 92.2%—Not comparable
MultimodalClaude Mythos 5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Mythos 5Kimi K2.6Result
SWE-bench MultimodalSource 54.9%—Not comparable
CharXivSource 93.5%80.4%Claude Mythos 5 leads
CharXiv w/o toolsSource 88.9%—Not comparable
MMMU-ProSource —79.4%Not comparable
MMMU-Pro w/ PythonSource —80.1%Not comparable
MathVisionSource —87.4%Not comparable
V*Source —96.9%Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource —79.4%Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource —1306Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Mythos 5Kimi K2.6Result
AA-IFBenchSource —76.0%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (6)

Which is better, Claude Mythos 5 or Kimi K2.6?

Claude Mythos 5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 83.93 to 56.79. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 64.5% and 34.7%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Mythos 5 or Kimi K2.6?

Claude Mythos 5 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 68.5 versus 42.2. Inside this category, HLE is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, Claude Mythos 5 or Kimi K2.6?

Claude Mythos 5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 89.7 versus 64.4. Inside this category, SWE-bench Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, Claude Mythos 5 or Kimi K2.6?

Claude Mythos 5 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 97.6 versus 67.1. Kimi K2.6 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Mythos 5 or Kimi K2.6?

Claude Mythos 5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 87 versus 73.5. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Mythos 5 or Kimi K2.6?

Claude Mythos 5 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 93.5 versus 79.8. Inside this category, CharXiv is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Self-host vs API cost

Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.

Claude Mythos 5
API / mo$45,000
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even—
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
Kimi K2.6
API / mo$3,713
Self-host / mo$18,221
Break-even326M/day
Model the full break-even

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.