Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Mythos 5 vs Qwen3.6-27B

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 7 shared benchmark results across 4 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

83.93/100
Margin
30.1pts
← winning
53.82/100
5 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Mythos 5 #1 (Supported); Qwen3.6-27B #93 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Mythos 5 and Qwen3.6-27B share 7 comparable benchmark results. 5 of 8 categories are comparable. 8 results are unique to Claude Mythos 5; 47 to Qwen3.6-27B.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
7
Claude Mythos 5 only
8
Qwen3.6-27B only
47
Comparable categories
5 / 8

Pick Claude Mythos 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.6-27B only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 7 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 53.82. 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 59.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 64.5% to 24%.

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 Qwen3.6-27B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Claude Mythos 5 gives you the larger context window at 1M+, compared with 262K for Qwen3.6-27B.

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 Qwen3.6-27B
CategoryClaude Mythos 5ΔQwen3.6-27B
AgenticClaude Mythos 587.0Margin← 27.7Qwen3.6-27B59.3
MultimodalClaude Mythos 593.5Margin← 16.8Qwen3.6-27B76.7
KnowledgeClaude Mythos 568.5Margin← 15.2Qwen3.6-27B53.3
CodingClaude Mythos 589.7Margin← 12.2Qwen3.6-27B77.5
MathClaude Mythos 597.6Margin← 8.4Qwen3.6-27B89.2

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Mythos 5B · Qwen3.6-27B

  1. HLE

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 64.5%B 24%
    Winner: Claude Mythos 5Δ 40.5
    HLE: Claude Mythos 5 scored 64.5%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 24%. Claude Mythos 5 wins this benchmark.

  2. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 88%B 59.3%
    Winner: Claude Mythos 5Δ 28.7
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Mythos 5 scored 88%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 59.3%. Claude Mythos 5 wins this benchmark.

  3. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 80.3%B 53.5%
    Winner: Claude Mythos 5Δ 26.8
    SWE-bench Pro: Claude Mythos 5 scored 80.3%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 53.5%. Claude Mythos 5 wins this benchmark.

  4. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 95.5%B 77.2%
    Winner: Claude Mythos 5Δ 18.3
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude Mythos 5 scored 95.5%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 77.2%. Claude Mythos 5 wins this benchmark.

  5. CharXiv

    Multimodal
    Source ↗
    A 93.5%B 78.4%
    Winner: Claude Mythos 5Δ 15.1
    CharXiv: Claude Mythos 5 scored 93.5%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 78.4%. 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 5Qwen3.6-27BComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Mythos 5$10 input / $50 outputQwen3.6-27B$0 input / $0 outputQwen3.6-27B has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Mythos 5Not availableQwen3.6-27BNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Mythos 5Not availableQwen3.6-27BNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Mythos 51M+Qwen3.6-27B262KClaude Mythos 5 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticClaude Mythos 5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Mythos 5Qwen3.6-27BResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 88%59.3%Claude Mythos 5 leads
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 85%—Not comparable
BrowseCompSource 88%—Not comparable
ExploitGymSource 17.5%—Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource —72.4%Not comparable
QwenClawBenchSource —53.4%Not comparable
QwenWebBenchSource —1487Not comparable
AndroidWorldSource —70.3%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —27.0%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource —94.2%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —32.0%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —1140Not comparable
Gert LabsSource —54.84%Not comparable
CodingClaude Mythos 5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Mythos 5Qwen3.6-27BResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 95.5%77.2%Claude Mythos 5 leads
SWE-bench ProSource 80.3%53.5%Claude Mythos 5 leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 88.0%59.3%Claude Mythos 5 leads
SWE MultilingualSource —71.3%Not comparable
LiveCodeBenchSource —83.9%Not comparable
NL2RepoSource —36.2%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —53.7%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource —39.8%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Mythos 5Qwen3.6-27BResult
AA-LCRSource —68.7%Not comparable
CritPtSource —1.1%Not comparable
KnowledgeClaude Mythos 5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Mythos 5Qwen3.6-27BResult
GPQASource 94.1%87.8%Claude Mythos 5 leads
HLESource 64.5%24%Claude Mythos 5 leads
HLE w/o toolsSource 59%—Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource —86.2%Not comparable
MMLU-ReduxSource —93.5%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource —66%Not comparable
C-EvalSource —91.4%Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource —37.0%Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource —84.2%Not comparable
AA-HLESource —21.6%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource —-19.8%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource —19.2%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource —48.3%Not comparable
MathClaude Mythos 5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Mythos 5Qwen3.6-27BResult
USAMO 2026Source 97.6%—Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2025Source —93.8%Not comparable
HMMT Nov 2025Source —90.7%Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source —84.3%Not comparable
MMAnswerBenchSource —80.8%Not comparable
AIME26Source —94.1%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude Mythos 5Qwen3.6-27BResult
SWE MultilingualSource 92.2%—Not comparable
MultimodalClaude Mythos 5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Mythos 5Qwen3.6-27BResult
SWE-bench MultimodalSource 54.9%—Not comparable
CharXivSource 93.5%78.4%Claude Mythos 5 leads
CharXiv w/o toolsSource 88.9%—Not comparable
MMMUSource —82.9%Not comparable
MMMU-ProSource —75.8%Not comparable
RealWorldQASource —84.1%Not comparable
DynaMathSource —85.6%Not comparable
MStarSource —81.4%Not comparable
SimpleVQASource —56.1%Not comparable
CC-OCRSource —81.2%Not comparable
CountBenchSource —97.8%Not comparable
RefCOCO (avg)Source —92.5%Not comparable
ERQASource —62.5%Not comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)Source —87.7%Not comparable
VideoMMMUSource —84.4%Not comparable
MLVU (M-Avg)Source —86.6%Not comparable
V*Source —94.7%Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource —74.6%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Mythos 5Qwen3.6-27BResult
AA-IFBenchSource —67.6%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (6)

Which is better, Claude Mythos 5 or Qwen3.6-27B?

Claude Mythos 5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 83.93 to 53.82. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 64.5% and 24%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Mythos 5 or Qwen3.6-27B?

Claude Mythos 5 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 68.5 versus 53.3. Inside this category, HLE is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, Claude Mythos 5 or Qwen3.6-27B?

Claude Mythos 5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 89.7 versus 77.5. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, Claude Mythos 5 or Qwen3.6-27B?

Claude Mythos 5 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 97.6 versus 89.2. Qwen3.6-27B stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Mythos 5 or Qwen3.6-27B?

Claude Mythos 5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 87 versus 59.3. 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 Qwen3.6-27B?

Claude Mythos 5 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 93.5 versus 76.7. 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.
Qwen3.6-27B
API / mo$0
Self-host / mo$429
Break-even—
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.