Compare · ModelsLive · 4 picked · head to head
Claude Mythos Preview vs Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview vs GPT-5 Chat vs Qwen3.5 397B A17B
Side by side · benchmarks, pricing, and signals you can act on.
Winner summary
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview wins on 21/26 benchmarks
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview wins 21 of 26 shared benchmarks. Leads in arena · speed · agentic.
Category leads
arena·Gemini 3.1 Pro Previewknowledge·Claude Mythos Previewspeed·Gemini 3.1 Pro Previewagentic·Gemini 3.1 Pro Previewgeneral·Gemini 3.1 Pro Previewmath·Gemini 3.1 Pro Previewcoding·Claude Mythos Preview
Hype vs Reality
Attention vs performance
Claude Mythos Preview
#5 by perf·no signal
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
#137 by perf·#6 by attention
GPT-5 Chat
#4 by perf·#4 by attention
Qwen3.5 397B A17B
#48 by perf·#2 by attention
Best value
Qwen3.5 397B A17B
2.0x better value than GPT-5 Chat
Claude Mythos Preview
n/a
no price
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
6.9 pts/$
$7.00/M
GPT-5 Chat
14.6 pts/$
$5.63/M
Qwen3.5 397B A17B
29.6 pts/$
$2.02/M
Vendor risk
Who is behind the model
Anthropic
$965.0B·Tier 1
Google DeepMind
$4.20T·Tier 1
OpenAI
$840.0B·Tier 1
Alibaba (Qwen)
$293.0B·Tier 1
Head to head
26 benchmarks · 4 models
Claude Mythos PreviewGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewGPT-5 ChatQwen3.5 397B A17B
Chatbot Arena Elo · Overall
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +45.2
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
1487.0
GPT-5 Chat
1426.6
Qwen3.5 397B A17B
1441.8
GPQA diamond
Claude Mythos Preview leads by +1.9
Graduate-Level Google-Proof QA (Diamond set) · expert-crafted questions in physics, biology, and chemistry that are difficult even for domain PhDs.
Claude Mythos Preview
94.5
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
92.6
Qwen3.5 397B A17B
81.8
Artificial Analysis · Agentic Index
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +1.5
Artificial Analysis Agentic Index · a composite score measuring how well a model performs in agentic workflows · multi-step tool use, planning, error recovery, and autonomous task completion. Aggregates results from multiple agentic benchmarks including SWE-bench, tool-use tests, and planning evaluations. The canonical single-number metric for "how good is this model as an agent?"
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
21.4
Qwen3.5 397B A17B
19.9
Artificial Analysis · Coding Index
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +20.6
Artificial Analysis Coding Index · a composite score that aggregates performance across multiple coding benchmarks into a single index. Tracks code generation quality, debugging ability, multi-language competence, and real-world software engineering tasks. Used by Artificial Analysis to rank model coding capability in a normalized, comparable format. Useful for developers choosing between models for coding-heavy workloads.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
68.8
Qwen3.5 397B A17B
48.2
Artificial Analysis · CritPt
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +16.8
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
17.7
Qwen3.5 397B A17B
0.9
Artificial Analysis · GDPval
Qwen3.5 397B A17B leads by +0.2
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
13.8
Qwen3.5 397B A17B
14.0
Artificial Analysis · GPQA Diamond
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +8.0
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
94.1
Qwen3.5 397B A17B
86.1
Artificial Analysis · Humanity's Last Exam
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +27.2
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
47.0
Qwen3.5 397B A17B
19.8
Artificial Analysis · IFBench
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +25.5
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
77.1
Qwen3.5 397B A17B
51.6
Artificial Analysis · Long Context Reasoning
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +17.7
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
82.0
Qwen3.5 397B A17B
64.3
Artificial Analysis · MMMU Pro
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +29.7
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
82.4
Qwen3.5 397B A17B
52.7
Artificial Analysis · Quality Index
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +8.3
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
29.7
Qwen3.5 397B A17B
21.4
Artificial Analysis · SciCode
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +13.9
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
58.7
Qwen3.5 397B A17B
44.8
Artificial Analysis · tau2-Bench Telecom
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +11.7
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
95.6
Qwen3.5 397B A17B
83.9
Artificial Analysis · Terminal-Bench Hard
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +18.2
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
53.8
Qwen3.5 397B A17B
35.6
APEX-Agents
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +10.4
APEX-Agents · evaluates AI agents on complex, multi-step tasks requiring planning, tool use, and autonomous decision-making in realistic environments.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
35.3
Qwen3.5 397B A17B
24.9
Chatbot Arena Elo · Coding
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +46.8
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
1446.2
Qwen3.5 397B A17B
1399.4
Chess Puzzles
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +44.2
Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
52.6
Qwen3.5 397B A17B
8.5
Dtbench
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +16.0
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
95.1
Qwen3.5 397B A17B
79.1
FrontierMath-Tiers-1-3-v2-Private
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +28.4
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
59.6
Qwen3.5 397B A17B
31.2
HLE
Claude Mythos Preview leads by +13.1
HLE (Humanity's Last Exam) · a reasoning benchmark designed to be the hardest public evaluation of AI. Questions span mathematics, physics, philosophy, and logic · curated to be at or beyond the frontier of human expert capability. Tested with and without tool augmentation. Claude Opus 4.7 scores 46.9% without tools and 54.7% with tools · making it one of the few benchmarks where the top score is below 60%.
Claude Mythos Preview
56.8
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
43.7
Lmca
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +18.7
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
63.3
Qwen3.5 397B A17B
44.6
Mystery Game Puzzles
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +17.6
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
27.3
Qwen3.5 397B A17B
9.7
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +6.7
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
95.6
Qwen3.5 397B A17B
88.9
SWE-Bench verified
Claude Mythos Preview leads by +18.3
SWE-bench Verified · 500 human-validated tasks from 12 real Python repositories (Django, Flask, scikit-learn, sympy, and others). Each task requires the model to produce a git patch that resolves a real GitHub issue and passes the test suite. The verified subset eliminates ambiguous tasks from the original SWE-bench. Claude Mythos Preview leads at 93.9%, crossing 90% for the first time in 2026. Opus 4.6 scores 80.8%. The benchmark remains the most-cited evaluation for code-generation capability.
Claude Mythos Preview
93.9
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
75.6
Terminal Bench
Claude Mythos Preview leads by +1.8
Terminal-Bench 2.0 · evaluates AI agents on real terminal-based coding tasks · writing scripts, debugging, running tests, and managing projects entirely through command-line interaction. Tests both code quality and terminal fluency. Claude Opus 4.7 scores 69.4%, demonstrating significant agentic terminal competence.
Claude Mythos Preview
82.0
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
80.2
Full benchmark table
| Benchmark | Claude Mythos Preview | Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | GPT-5 Chat | Qwen3.5 397B A17B |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Chatbot Arena Elo · Overall | — | 1487.0 | 1426.6 | 1441.8 |
GPQA diamond Graduate-Level Google-Proof QA (Diamond set) · expert-crafted questions in physics, biology, and chemistry that are difficult even for domain PhDs. | 94.5 | 92.6 | — | 81.8 |
Artificial Analysis · Agentic Index Artificial Analysis Agentic Index · a composite score measuring how well a model performs in agentic workflows · multi-step tool use, planning, error recovery, and autonomous task completion. Aggregates results from multiple agentic benchmarks including SWE-bench, tool-use tests, and planning evaluations. The canonical single-number metric for "how good is this model as an agent?" | — | 21.4 | — | 19.9 |
Artificial Analysis · Coding Index Artificial Analysis Coding Index · a composite score that aggregates performance across multiple coding benchmarks into a single index. Tracks code generation quality, debugging ability, multi-language competence, and real-world software engineering tasks. Used by Artificial Analysis to rank model coding capability in a normalized, comparable format. Useful for developers choosing between models for coding-heavy workloads. | — | 68.8 | — | 48.2 |
Artificial Analysis · CritPt | — | 17.7 | — | 0.9 |
Artificial Analysis · GDPval | — | 13.8 | — | 14.0 |
Artificial Analysis · GPQA Diamond | — | 94.1 | — | 86.1 |
Artificial Analysis · Humanity's Last Exam | — | 47.0 | — | 19.8 |
Artificial Analysis · IFBench | — | 77.1 | — | 51.6 |
Artificial Analysis · Long Context Reasoning | — | 82.0 | — | 64.3 |
Artificial Analysis · MMMU Pro | — | 82.4 | — | 52.7 |
Artificial Analysis · Quality Index | — | 29.7 | — | 21.4 |
Artificial Analysis · SciCode | — | 58.7 | — | 44.8 |
Artificial Analysis · tau2-Bench Telecom | — | 95.6 | — | 83.9 |
Artificial Analysis · Terminal-Bench Hard | — | 53.8 | — | 35.6 |
APEX-Agents APEX-Agents · evaluates AI agents on complex, multi-step tasks requiring planning, tool use, and autonomous decision-making in realistic environments. | — | 35.3 | — | 24.9 |
Chatbot Arena Elo · Coding | — | 1446.2 | — | 1399.4 |
Chess Puzzles Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities. | — | 52.6 | — | 8.5 |
Dtbench | — | 95.1 | — | 79.1 |
FrontierMath-Tiers-1-3-v2-Private | — | 59.6 | — | 31.2 |
HLE HLE (Humanity's Last Exam) · a reasoning benchmark designed to be the hardest public evaluation of AI. Questions span mathematics, physics, philosophy, and logic · curated to be at or beyond the frontier of human expert capability. Tested with and without tool augmentation. Claude Opus 4.7 scores 46.9% without tools and 54.7% with tools · making it one of the few benchmarks where the top score is below 60%. | 56.8 | 43.7 | — | — |
Lmca | — | 63.3 | — | 44.6 |
Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 27.3 | — | 9.7 |
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills. | — | 95.6 | — | 88.9 |
SWE-Bench verified SWE-bench Verified · 500 human-validated tasks from 12 real Python repositories (Django, Flask, scikit-learn, sympy, and others). Each task requires the model to produce a git patch that resolves a real GitHub issue and passes the test suite. The verified subset eliminates ambiguous tasks from the original SWE-bench. Claude Mythos Preview leads at 93.9%, crossing 90% for the first time in 2026. Opus 4.6 scores 80.8%. The benchmark remains the most-cited evaluation for code-generation capability. | 93.9 | 75.6 | — | — |
Terminal Bench Terminal-Bench 2.0 · evaluates AI agents on real terminal-based coding tasks · writing scripts, debugging, running tests, and managing projects entirely through command-line interaction. Tests both code quality and terminal fluency. Claude Opus 4.7 scores 69.4%, demonstrating significant agentic terminal competence. | 82.0 | 80.2 | — | — |
Pricing · per 1M tokens · projected $/mo at 10M tokens
| Model | Input | Output | Context | Projected $/mo |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| — | — | 1.0M tokens (~500 books) | — | |
| $2.00 | $12.00 | 1.0M tokens (~524 books) | $45.00 | |
| $1.25 | $10.00 | 128K tokens (~64 books) | $34.38 | |
| $0.55 | $3.50 | 262K tokens (~131 books) | $12.88 |