Claude Mythos 5.1 vs GR00T N1.7 3B
At a Glance
| Compare | Claude Mythos 5.1Anthropic | GR00T N1.7 3BNVIDIA |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing and Limits | ||
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | 1,000K | Not reported |
| Model facts checked | Sep 2, 2026View model evidence → | Aug 29, 2026View model evidence → |
Available Benchmarks
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | Claude Mythos 5.1 | GR00T N1.7 3B |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Anthropic | NVIDIA |
| Family | Claude 5 1 | Isaac GR00T |
| Model | Claude Mythos 5.1 | GR00T N1.7 3B |
| Version | Claude Mythos 5.1 | N1.7 |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | 2026-09-01 | 2026-07-07 |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2026-06-01 | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image, Robot state |
| Output modalities | Text | Robot action |
| Context window | 1,000K | Unknown |
| Total parameters | Unknown | 3B |
| Active parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | Unknown | apache-2.0 |
| Open weights | No | Yes |
| API available | Yes | No |
| Self-hostable | No | Yes |
| Provider access | Anthropic (Project Glasswing) | Unknown |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, reasoning, tools | cross-embodiment, dexterous-manipulation, whole-body-control, fine-tuning |
| Robotics model type | Unknown | Vision-language-action model |
| Action representation | Unknown | Predictive chunks of relative joint motions |
| Control architecture | Unknown | Vision-language backbone with action expert |
| Inference location | Unknown | On device |
| Native control rate (Hz) | Unknown | Unknown |
| Supported embodiments | Unknown | Unitree G1, AgiBot Genie-1, Fourier GR-1, bimanual manipulation platforms |
| Training data | Unknown | Mixture of real teleoperation, synthetic robot data, and internet-scale video described by NVIDIA. |
Claude Mythos 5.1 Capabilities
GR00T N1.7 3B Capabilities
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Claude Mythos 5.1 vs GR00T N1.7 3B FAQs
Is Claude Mythos 5.1 or GR00T N1.7 3B better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Claude Mythos 5.1 and GR00T N1.7 3B, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Claude Mythos 5.1 or GR00T N1.7 3B?+
Only Claude Mythos 5.1 has a directly sourced input price: $10.00 per million tokens. Only Claude Mythos 5.1 has a directly sourced output price: $50.00 per million tokens.
Which has a larger context window, Claude Mythos 5.1 or GR00T N1.7 3B?+
Neither model has a larger sourced context window in this comparison. Claude Mythos 5.1 is 1,000K and GR00T N1.7 3B is —.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Claude Mythos 5.1 or GR00T N1.7 3B?+
There is no overall benchmark winner: At least two independently verified, protocol-matched benchmarks are required for an overall winner.
Can Claude Mythos 5.1 or GR00T N1.7 3B be self-hosted?+
GR00T N1.7 3B is the only model in this pair currently marked as self-hostable. Claude Mythos 5.1 is not marked open weight; GR00T N1.7 3B is open weight.
Can Claude Mythos 5.1 and GR00T N1.7 3B understand images?+
Claude Mythos 5.1 is documented with image input; GR00T N1.7 3B is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Claude Mythos 5.1 or GR00T N1.7 3B?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Claude Mythos 5.1 is 128K and GR00T N1.7 3B is —.
Do Claude Mythos 5.1 and GR00T N1.7 3B support reasoning and tool use?+
Claude Mythos 5.1: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. GR00T N1.7 3B: image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, Claude Mythos 5.1 or GR00T N1.7 3B?+
Claude Mythos 5.1 has 1 sourced provider route; GR00T N1.7 3B has 0, so Claude Mythos 5.1 has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, Claude Mythos 5.1 or GR00T N1.7 3B?+
There is no universal value winner. Compare the input and output prices above with the matched benchmark result for your workload: cheaper tokens can be offset by different quality, token usage, latency, or provider availability.