Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Mythos 5 vs MiniMax M2.7

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

83.93/100
Margin
19.8pts
← winning
64.11/100
2 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Mythos 5 #1 (Supported); MiniMax M2.7 #36 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Mythos 5 and MiniMax M2.7 share 2 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 13 results are unique to Claude Mythos 5; 33 to MiniMax M2.7.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
2
Claude Mythos 5 only
13
MiniMax M2.7 only
33
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Pick Claude Mythos 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiniMax M2.7 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 2 shared benchmark results across 2 evidence categories; 2 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 64.11. 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 coding, where it averages 89.7 against 53.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 88% to 57%.

Claude Mythos 5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $10.00 input / $50.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.30 input / $1.20 output per 1M tokens for MiniMax M2.7. That is roughly 41.7x on output cost alone. Claude Mythos 5 is the reasoning model in the pair, while MiniMax M2.7 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 200K for MiniMax M2.7.

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 MiniMax M2.7
CategoryClaude Mythos 5ΔMiniMax M2.7
CodingClaude Mythos 589.7Margin← 36.4MiniMax M2.753.3
AgenticClaude Mythos 587.0Margin← 30.0MiniMax M2.757.0
KnowledgeClaude Mythos 568.5MarginNo overlapMiniMax M2.7Not measured
MathClaude Mythos 597.6MarginNo overlapMiniMax M2.7Not measured
MultimodalClaude Mythos 593.5MarginNo overlapMiniMax M2.7Not measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Mythos 5B · MiniMax M2.7

  1. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 88%B 57%
    Winner: Claude Mythos 5Δ 31
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Mythos 5 scored 88%; MiniMax M2.7 scored 57%. Claude Mythos 5 wins this benchmark.

  2. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 80.3%B 56.2%
    Winner: Claude Mythos 5Δ 24.1
    SWE-bench Pro: Claude Mythos 5 scored 80.3%; MiniMax M2.7 scored 56.2%. 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 5MiniMax M2.7Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Mythos 5$10 input / $50 outputMiniMax M2.7$0.3 input / $1.2 outputMiniMax M2.7 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Mythos 5Not availableMiniMax M2.745 tok/sA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Mythos 5Not availableMiniMax M2.72.53 sA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Mythos 51M+MiniMax M2.7200KClaude Mythos 5 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticClaude Mythos 5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Mythos 5MiniMax M2.7Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 88%57%Claude Mythos 5 leads
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 85%—Not comparable
BrowseCompSource 88%—Not comparable
ExploitGymSource 17.5%—Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource —84.8%Not comparable
ToolathlonSource —46.3%Not comparable
MLE-Bench LiteSource —66.6%Not comparable
MM-ClawBenchSource —62.7%Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource —48.7%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —25.6%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource —10.6%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —32.9%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —1158Not comparable
Gert LabsSource —40.40%Not comparable
CodingClaude Mythos 5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Mythos 5MiniMax M2.7Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 95.5%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 80.3%56.2%Claude Mythos 5 leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 88.0%—Not comparable
SWE-bench Verified*Source —75.4%Not comparable
SWE-RebenchSource —51.9%Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource —76.5%Not comparable
Multi-SWE BenchSource —52.7%Not comparable
VIBE-ProSource —55.6%Not comparable
NL2RepoSource —39.8%Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource —27.04%Not comparable
React Native EvalsSource —71.4%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —52.6%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource —47.0%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Mythos 5MiniMax M2.7Result
AA-LCRSource —68.7%Not comparable
CritPtSource —0.6%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Mythos 5MiniMax M2.7Result
GPQASource 94.1%—Not comparable
HLESource 64.5%—Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource 59%—Not comparable
GPQA-DSource —87.0%Not comparable
MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source —80.8%Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource —38.1%Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource —87.4%Not comparable
AA-HLESource —28.1%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource —0.7%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource —26.1%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource —34.4%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude Mythos 5MiniMax M2.7Result
USAMO 2026Source 97.6%—Not comparable
AIME25 (Arcee)Source —80.0%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude Mythos 5MiniMax M2.7Result
SWE MultilingualSource 92.2%—Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Mythos 5MiniMax M2.7Result
SWE-bench MultimodalSource 54.9%—Not comparable
CharXivSource 93.5%—Not comparable
CharXiv w/o toolsSource 88.9%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource —1275Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Mythos 5MiniMax M2.7Result
AA-IFBenchSource —75.7%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, Claude Mythos 5 or MiniMax M2.7?

Claude Mythos 5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 83.93 to 64.11. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 88% and 57%.

Which is better for coding, Claude Mythos 5 or MiniMax M2.7?

Claude Mythos 5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 89.7 versus 53.3. Inside this category, SWE-bench Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Mythos 5 or MiniMax M2.7?

Claude Mythos 5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 87 versus 57. 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.