Claude Mythos 5.1vsQwen3.8-Flash-Next
Claude Mythos 5.1 | Qwen3.8-Flash-Next | |
|---|---|---|
| Specifications | ||
ParametersA rough measure of how big the model is. More parameters usually means more capable and more expensive to run, though it is a poor guide on its own — a smaller, newer model often beats a larger, older one. | — | 125B |
Context windowHow much text the model can hold in mind at once — your question, any documents you attach, the conversation so far, and its own reply. Go past it and the earliest part falls out of view. | 1M | 262k |
| BenchmarksPublished by one model only | ||
SWE-Bench ProAgentic coding — Can the AI fix real bugs in real software? It's handed actual problems from open-source projects and has to write code that genuinely solves them. Higher is better. | — | 62.5% |
SWE-Bench MultilingualMultilingual coding — Like SWE-Bench, but the coding problems span many programming languages, not just one. Tests how broadly the AI can code. Higher is better. | — | 81% |
DeepSWE 1.1Agentic coding — Artificial Analysis' independent test of deep, agentic software-engineering work — the AI has to plan and carry out substantial coding tasks end to end. (Version 1.1 of the test.) Higher is better. | — | 58.7% |
NL2Repo-BenchRepo-level code generation — Tests whether the AI can turn a natural-language requirement into working code across an entire repository, not just produce a single function or patch. Higher is better. | — | 48.1% |
LiveCodeBenchCompetitive coding — Coding problems published so recently the AI can't have seen them in training — a contamination-free test of raw programming skill. Higher is better. | — | 91.9% |
Terminal-Bench 4.0Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Version 4.0 recalibrated how much time, CPU and memory each task gets, removed eight tasks and fixed nineteen, so fewer runs fail for reasons that have nothing to do with the model. Scores are not comparable with earlier versions. Higher is better. | 60.9% | — |
JobBenchProfessional tool use — Tests the AI on professional workplace tasks that require using real work tools — the kind of multi-step jobs an office worker handles. Higher is better. | — | 55.7% |
CoWorkBenchLong-horizon office work — Tests long-running office tasks across fields including computer science, finance, law, medicine, and other productivity work. Higher is better. | — | 73.9% |
Toolathlon-VerifiedPersonal tool use — Tests how well the AI uses everyday personal tools and apps to get things done — a human-checked version of Toolathlon. Higher is better. | — | 73.5% |
Humanity's Last Exam · no toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects, written so you can't just look up the answer. “No tools” means the AI answers on its own. Higher is better. | — | 35.9% |
Humanity's Last Exam · with toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects. “With tools” means the AI is allowed to search the web or run code while answering. Higher is better. | — | 35.9% |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | — | 91.7% |
IFBenchInstruction following — Tests whether the AI can follow detailed instructions and satisfy multiple constraints at once. Higher is better. | — | 81.3% |
OSWorld 2.0Agentic computer use — Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Version 2.0 is a harder, refreshed task set. Higher is better. | — | 19.4% |
Agent's Last Exam · pass@1Agentic computer use — A hard set of desktop and operating-system tasks an AI agent has to finish by looking at the screen and working the machine itself. The score is the share it passes outright — partial credit does not count. Higher is better. | — | 24.3% |
Agent's Last Exam · scoreAgentic computer use — The graded score on the same desktop and operating-system tasks in Agent's Last Exam, giving partial credit for progress beyond the strict pass-or-fail result. Higher is better. | — | 51.2% |
CharXiv ReasoningChart reasoning — Can the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | — | 84.6% |
LVBenchVideo understanding — Can the AI follow a very long video — up to an hour — and answer questions that need details from far apart in it? Higher is better. | — | 76.6% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | Qwen |
| Release date | Sep 1 2026 | Aug 26 2026 |
| Access | Proprietary | Open Weight |
Other comparisons
Claude Mythos 5.1vsGPT-5.6 SolQwen3.8-Flash-NextvsGPT-5.6 SolClaude Mythos 5.1vsGemini 3.7 FlashQwen3.8-Flash-NextvsGemini 3.7 FlashClaude Mythos 5.1vsMuse GlimmerQwen3.8-Flash-NextvsMuse GlimmerClaude Mythos 5.1vsGrok 4.6Qwen3.8-Flash-NextvsGrok 4.6Claude Mythos 5.1vsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Qwen3.8-Flash-NextvsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Claude Mythos 5.1vsMistral Medium 3.5Qwen3.8-Flash-NextvsMistral Medium 3.5
Frequently asked questions
Claude Mythos 5.1 and Qwen3.8-Flash-Next don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Qwen3.8-Flash-Next shipped 6 days before Claude Mythos 5.1, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Claude Mythos 5.1) vs 262k (Qwen3.8-Flash-Next). Claude Mythos 5.1 is proprietary, while Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is open weight.
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Claude Mythos 5.1 and Qwen3.8-Flash-Next don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.
Claude Mythos 5.1 was released by Anthropic on Sep 1 2026.
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next was released by Qwen on Aug 26 2026.
Claude Mythos 5.1 has a 1M context window; Qwen3.8-Flash-Next has 262k.
Claude Mythos 5.1 is a proprietary model released by Anthropic. Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is an open weight model released by Qwen.