ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Nov 2, 2026

MiniCPM5-2B vs Claude Mythos 5.1

Claude Mythos 5.1 comes out ahead, 66 to 31 on our weighted score.

  1. OpenBMB

    MiniCPM5-2B

    Released Sep 6, 2026New

    31/100
    • ECI—
    • Price—
    • Context131K
    Full specs Remove MiniCPM5-2B
  2. Our pick

    Anthropic

    Claude Mythos 5.1

    Released Sep 1, 2026

    66/100
    • ECI—
    • Price—
    • Context1M
    Full specs Remove Claude Mythos 5.1

  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

01 — Verdict

Claude Mythos 5.1 is our pick

Claude Mythos 5.1 is the better all-round choice, scoring 66/100 against MiniCPM5-2B (31). It leads on inputs & features and context window. The score weighs inputs & features 60%, context window 40%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.

  • CapabilityNot enough dataNo independent benchmark covers every model here yet
  • Longest contextClaude Mythos 5.1Claude Mythos 5.1 1,000,000 · MiniCPM5-2B 131,072 tokens
  • Widest inputsClaude Mythos 5.1MiniCPM5-2B: Text · Claude Mythos 5.1: Text, Images, PDFs
  • Self-hostingMiniCPM5-2BPublishes downloadable weights (apache-2.0)
How the score is built
MeasureWeightMiniCPM5-2BClaude Mythos 5.1
Inputs & features60%3570
Context window40%2560
Overall100%31/10066/100

Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability and price. The remaining weights were rescaled.

02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

MiniCPM5-2B vs Claude Mythos 5.1 specifications side by side
SpecificationMiniCPM5-2BOpenBMBClaude Mythos 5.1Anthropic
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)——
ECI rank——
Price per million tokens
Input——
Output——
Cached input——
Blended (3:1)——
Long-context rate——
Price source——
Limits
Context window131,072 tokens1,000,000 tokens (best)
Max output131,072 tokens (best)128,000 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesNoYes
PDFsNoYes
AudioNoNo
VideoNoNo
ReasoningYesYes
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputNoNo
Availability
WeightsOpenapache-2.0Proprietary
API model ID——
API providers1—
ReleasedSep 6, 2026Sep 1, 2026
Knowledge cutoff—Jun 2026
03 — Cost

What would a month cost?

Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.

  • MiniCPM5-2B—
  • Claude Mythos 5.1—
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: MiniCPM5-2B or Claude Mythos 5.1?

Claude Mythos 5.1 is the better all-round choice, scoring 66/100 against MiniCPM5-2B (31). It leads on inputs & features and context window. The score weighs inputs & features 60%, context window 40%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.

Which is cheaper, MiniCPM5-2B or Claude Mythos 5.1?

None of these models has a published per-token price.

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. MiniCPM5-2B has not been scored yet and Claude Mythos 5.1 has not been scored yet.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for MiniCPM5-2B and Claude Mythos 5.1 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Mythos 5.1 has the largest context window at 1,000,000 tokens, against 131,072 for MiniCPM5-2B. Maximum output per response: MiniCPM5-2B up to 131,072, Claude Mythos 5.1 up to 128,000 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

MiniCPM5-2B accepts text; Claude Mythos 5.1 accepts text, images and PDFs. Claude Mythos 5.1 handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

MiniCPM5-2B publishes its weights (apache-2.0) and can be self-hosted; Claude Mythos 5.1 is proprietary.

Which is newer?

MiniCPM5-2B is the newest, released Sep 6, 2026. Claude Mythos 5.1 came out Sep 1, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: Claude Mythos 5.1 Jun 2026.

How do you decide the winner?

Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Nov 2, 2026.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons