Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Mythos 5 vs Qwen3 235B 2507

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
Margin
27.9pts
← winning
56.02/100
0 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Mythos 5 #1 (Supported); Qwen3 235B 2507 #78 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Mythos 5 and Qwen3 235B 2507 share 1 comparable benchmark result. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 14 results are unique to Claude Mythos 5; 3 to Qwen3 235B 2507.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
1
Claude Mythos 5 only
14
Qwen3 235B 2507 only
3
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick Claude Mythos 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3 235B 2507 only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.

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 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 83.93 to 56.02. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

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 Qwen3 235B 2507. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Claude Mythos 5 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Qwen3 235B 2507 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 128K for Qwen3 235B 2507.

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 Qwen3 235B 2507
CategoryClaude Mythos 5ΔQwen3 235B 2507
KnowledgeClaude Mythos 568.5Margin→ 10.4Qwen3 235B 250778.9
AgenticClaude Mythos 587.0MarginNo overlapQwen3 235B 2507Not measured
CodingClaude Mythos 589.7MarginNo overlapQwen3 235B 2507Not measured
MathClaude Mythos 597.6MarginNo overlapQwen3 235B 2507Not measured
MultilingualClaude Mythos 5Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3 235B 250779.4
MultimodalClaude Mythos 593.5MarginNo overlapQwen3 235B 2507Not measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Mythos 5B · Qwen3 235B 2507

  1. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 94.1%B 77.5%
    Winner: Claude Mythos 5Δ 16.6
    GPQA: Claude Mythos 5 scored 94.1%; Qwen3 235B 2507 scored 77.5%. 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 5Qwen3 235B 2507Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Mythos 5$10 input / $50 outputQwen3 235B 2507$0 input / $0 outputQwen3 235B 2507 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Mythos 5Not availableQwen3 235B 2507Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Mythos 5Not availableQwen3 235B 2507Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Mythos 51M+Qwen3 235B 2507128KClaude Mythos 5 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Mythos 5Qwen3 235B 2507Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 88%—Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 85%—Not comparable
BrowseCompSource 88%—Not comparable
ExploitGymSource 17.5%—Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkClaude Mythos 5Qwen3 235B 2507Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 95.5%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 80.3%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 88.0%—Not comparable
KnowledgeQwen3 235B 2507 wins
BenchmarkClaude Mythos 5Qwen3 235B 2507Result
GPQASource 94.1%77.5%Claude Mythos 5 leads
HLESource 64.5%—Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource 59%—Not comparable
SuperGPQASource —62.6%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource —83%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude Mythos 5Qwen3 235B 2507Result
USAMO 2026Source 97.6%—Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude Mythos 5Qwen3 235B 2507Result
SWE MultilingualSource 92.2%—Not comparable
MMLU-ProXSource —79.4%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Mythos 5Qwen3 235B 2507Result
SWE-bench MultimodalSource 54.9%—Not comparable
CharXivSource 93.5%—Not comparable
CharXiv w/o toolsSource 88.9%—Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Claude Mythos 5 or Qwen3 235B 2507?

Claude Mythos 5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 83.93 to 56.02. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 94.1% and 77.5%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Mythos 5 or Qwen3 235B 2507?

Qwen3 235B 2507 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 78.9 versus 68.5. 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.