Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Mythos 5 vs LFM2.5-230M

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 1 shared benchmark result across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

83.93/100
No comparison
LFM2.5-230M
LiquidAI
N/A
1 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Mythos 5 #1 (Supported); LFM2.5-230M unranked (Not scored). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Mythos 5 and LFM2.5-230M share 1 comparable benchmark result. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 14 results are unique to Claude Mythos 5; 5 to LFM2.5-230M.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
1
Claude Mythos 5 only
14
LFM2.5-230M only
5
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Treat this as a split decision. Claude Mythos 5 makes more sense if knowledge is the priority or you need the larger 1M+ context window; LFM2.5-230M is the better fit 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 1 shared benchmark result across 1 evidence category; 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 and LFM2.5-230M finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.

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 LFM2.5-230M. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Claude Mythos 5 is the reasoning model in the pair, while LFM2.5-230M 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 32K for LFM2.5-230M.

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 LFM2.5-230M
CategoryClaude Mythos 5ΔLFM2.5-230M
KnowledgeClaude Mythos 568.5Margin← 47.3LFM2.5-230M21.2
AgenticClaude Mythos 587.0MarginNo overlapLFM2.5-230MNot measured
CodingClaude Mythos 589.7MarginNo overlapLFM2.5-230MNot measured
MathClaude Mythos 597.6MarginNo overlapLFM2.5-230MNot measured
MultimodalClaude Mythos 593.5MarginNo overlapLFM2.5-230MNot measured
Inst. FollowingClaude Mythos 5Not measuredMarginNo overlapLFM2.5-230M50.1

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Mythos 5B · LFM2.5-230M

  1. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 94.1%B 25.4%
    Winner: Claude Mythos 5Δ 68.7
    GPQA: Claude Mythos 5 scored 94.1%; LFM2.5-230M scored 25.4%. 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 5LFM2.5-230MComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Mythos 5$10 input / $50 outputLFM2.5-230M$0 input / $0 outputLFM2.5-230M has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Mythos 5Not availableLFM2.5-230MNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Mythos 5Not availableLFM2.5-230MNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Mythos 51M+LFM2.5-230M32KClaude Mythos 5 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Mythos 5LFM2.5-230MResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 88%—Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 85%—Not comparable
BrowseCompSource 88%—Not comparable
ExploitGymSource 17.5%—Not comparable
BFCL v4Source —21.0%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkClaude Mythos 5LFM2.5-230MResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 95.5%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 80.3%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 88.0%—Not comparable
KnowledgeClaude Mythos 5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Mythos 5LFM2.5-230MResult
GPQASource 94.1%25.4%Claude Mythos 5 leads
HLESource 64.5%—Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource 59%—Not comparable
GPQA-DSource —25.4%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource —20.3%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude Mythos 5LFM2.5-230MResult
USAMO 2026Source 97.6%—Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude Mythos 5LFM2.5-230MResult
SWE MultilingualSource 92.2%—Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Mythos 5LFM2.5-230MResult
SWE-bench MultimodalSource 54.9%—Not comparable
CharXivSource 93.5%—Not comparable
CharXiv w/o toolsSource 88.9%—Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Mythos 5LFM2.5-230MResult
IFEvalSource —71.7%Not comparable
IFBenchSource —38.4%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Claude Mythos 5 or LFM2.5-230M?

Claude Mythos 5 and LFM2.5-230M are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Mythos 5 or LFM2.5-230M?

Claude Mythos 5 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 68.5 versus 21.2. Inside this category, GPQA 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.