Model comparison
Claude Mythos 5 vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
Head-to-head evidence from 6 shared benchmark results across 4 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Mythos 5 #1 (Supported); Qwen3.5-122B-A10B #47 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Mythos 5 and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B share 6 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 9 results are unique to Claude Mythos 5; 25 to Qwen3.5-122B-A10B.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 6
- Claude Mythos 5 only
- 9
- Qwen3.5-122B-A10B only
- 25
- Comparable categories
- 4 / 8
Pick Claude Mythos 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.5-122B-A10B 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 6 shared benchmark results across 4 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 60.56. 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 agentic, where it averages 87 against 56.4. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 88% to 49.4%. Qwen3.5-122B-A10B does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
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 Qwen3.5-122B-A10B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Claude Mythos 5 gives you the larger context window at 1M+, compared with 262K for Qwen3.5-122B-A10B.
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 | Claude Mythos 5 | Δ | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Claude Mythos 587.0 | Margin← 30.6 | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B56.4 |
| Coding | Claude Mythos 589.7 | Margin← 17.7 | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B72.0 |
| Multimodal | Claude Mythos 593.5 | Margin← 16.3 | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B77.2 |
| Knowledge | Claude Mythos 568.5 | Margin→ 15.1 | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B83.6 |
| Reasoning | Claude Mythos 5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B60.2 |
| Math | Claude Mythos 597.6 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5-122B-A10BNot measured |
| Multilingual | Claude Mythos 5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B82.2 |
| Inst. Following | Claude Mythos 5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B93.4 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 88%B 49.4%Winner: Claude Mythos 5Δ 38.6Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Mythos 5 scored 88%; Qwen3.5-122B-A10B scored 49.4%. Claude Mythos 5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
OSWorld-Verified
AgenticA 85%B 58%Winner: Claude Mythos 5Δ 27OSWorld-Verified: Claude Mythos 5 scored 85%; Qwen3.5-122B-A10B scored 58%. Claude Mythos 5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
BrowseComp
AgenticA 88%B 63.8%Winner: Claude Mythos 5Δ 24.2BrowseComp: Claude Mythos 5 scored 88%; Qwen3.5-122B-A10B scored 63.8%. Claude Mythos 5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 95.5%B 72%Winner: Claude Mythos 5Δ 23.5SWE-bench Verified: Claude Mythos 5 scored 95.5%; Qwen3.5-122B-A10B scored 72%. Claude Mythos 5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
CharXiv
MultimodalA 93.5%B 77.2%Winner: Claude Mythos 5Δ 16.3CharXiv: Claude Mythos 5 scored 93.5%; Qwen3.5-122B-A10B scored 77.2%. Claude Mythos 5 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Mythos 5 | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Mythos 5$10 input / $50 output | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B$0 input / $0 output | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Mythos 5Not available | Qwen3.5-122B-A10BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Mythos 5Not available | Qwen3.5-122B-A10BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Mythos 51M+ | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B262K | Claude Mythos 5 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticClaude Mythos 5 wins8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Mythos 5 | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 88% | 49.4% | Claude Mythos 5 leads |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 85% | 58% | Claude Mythos 5 leads |
| BrowseCompSource | 88% | 63.8% | Claude Mythos 5 leads |
| ExploitGymSource | 17.5% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 93.6% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 20.7% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 23.9% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 978 | Not comparable |
CodingClaude Mythos 5 wins5 benchmarks
Reasoning3 benchmarks
KnowledgeQwen3.5-122B-A10B wins11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Mythos 5 | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 94.1% | 86.6% | Claude Mythos 5 leads |
| HLESource | 64.5% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 59% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 86.7% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 67.1% | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 32.3% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 85.7% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 23.4% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | -39.6% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 24.7% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 85.5% | Not comparable |
Math1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Mythos 5 | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| USAMO 2026Source | 97.6% | — | Not comparable |
Multilingual2 benchmarks
MultimodalClaude Mythos 5 wins8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Mythos 5 | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench MultimodalSource | 54.9% | — | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | 93.5% | 77.2% | Claude Mythos 5 leads |
| CharXiv w/o toolsSource | 88.9% | — | Not comparable |
| MMMUSource | — | 83.9% | Not comparable |
| MMVUSource | — | 74.7% | Not comparable |
| MathVisionSource | — | 86.2% | Not comparable |
| V*Source | — | 93.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 75.0% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (5)
Which is better, Claude Mythos 5 or Qwen3.5-122B-A10B?
Claude Mythos 5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 83.93 to 60.56. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 88% and 49.4%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Mythos 5 or Qwen3.5-122B-A10B?
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 83.6 versus 68.5. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, Claude Mythos 5 or Qwen3.5-122B-A10B?
Claude Mythos 5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 89.7 versus 72. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Mythos 5 or Qwen3.5-122B-A10B?
Claude Mythos 5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 87 versus 56.4. 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 Qwen3.5-122B-A10B?
Claude Mythos 5 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 93.5 versus 77.2. Inside this category, CharXiv is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
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.