Claude Mythos 5.1 vs Ternary Bonsai 1.7B
At a Glance
| Compare | Claude Mythos 5.1Anthropic |  Ternary Bonsai 1.7BPrismML |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing and Limits | ||
| Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $10.00Anthropic ↗ · Sep 2, 2026 | Not reported |
| Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $50.00Anthropic ↗ · Sep 2, 2026 | Not reported |
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | 1,000K | 33K |
| Model facts checked | Sep 2, 2026View model evidence → | Sep 18, 2026View model evidence → |
Token prices are the lowest available sourced USD rates; input and output may use different providers. Cost ranking estimates output spend on LiveBench, not a full request bill. Ranking methodology →
Available Benchmarks
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | Claude Mythos 5.1 | Ternary Bonsai 1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Anthropic | PrismML |
| Family | Claude 5 1 | Bonsai 1 7b |
| Model | Claude Mythos 5.1 | Ternary Bonsai 1.7B |
| Version | Claude Mythos 5.1 | Ternary Bonsai 1.7B |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | 2026-09-01 | 2026-04-18 |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2026-06-01 | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 1,000K | 33K |
| Total parameters | Unknown | 1.7B |
| 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 | chat, generation |
| Effective bit width | Unknown | 1.58 bits per weight |
| Weight size | Unknown | 0.46 GB |
| Weight format | Unknown | Ternary Q2_0 |
Claude Mythos 5.1 Capabilities
Ternary Bonsai 1.7B Capabilities
Related Comparisons
All text comparisons →| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
Claude Mythos 5.1Anthropic | vs |  GPT-6 AstraOpenAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs | Claude Mythos 5.1Anthropic | family variantsimage, text |
Claude Mythos 5.1Anthropic | vs |  Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Mythos 5.1Anthropic | vs |  DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashDeepSeek | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Mythos 5.1Anthropic | vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Mythos 5.1Anthropic | vs |  Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Mythos 5.1Anthropic | vs |  Kimi-K3Moonshot AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
 MiniMax-M3MiniMax | vs | Claude Mythos 5.1Anthropic | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Mythos 5.1Anthropic | vs |  GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Mythos 5.1Anthropic | vs |  Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Mythos 5.1Anthropic | vs | Seed 2.1 ProByteDance Seed | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Mythos 5.1Anthropic | vs |  Mistral Large 3Mistral AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Claude Mythos 5.1 vs Ternary Bonsai 1.7B FAQs
Is Claude Mythos 5.1 or Ternary Bonsai 1.7B better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Claude Mythos 5.1 and Ternary Bonsai 1.7B, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Claude Mythos 5.1 or Ternary Bonsai 1.7B?+
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 Ternary Bonsai 1.7B?+
Claude Mythos 5.1 has the larger sourced context window. Claude Mythos 5.1 supports 1,000K and Ternary Bonsai 1.7B supports 33K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Claude Mythos 5.1 or Ternary Bonsai 1.7B?+
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 Ternary Bonsai 1.7B be self-hosted?+
Ternary Bonsai 1.7B is the only model in this pair currently marked as self-hostable. Claude Mythos 5.1 is not marked open weight; Ternary Bonsai 1.7B is open weight.
Can Claude Mythos 5.1 and Ternary Bonsai 1.7B understand images?+
Claude Mythos 5.1 is documented with image input; Ternary Bonsai 1.7B is not documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Claude Mythos 5.1 or Ternary Bonsai 1.7B?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Claude Mythos 5.1 is 128K and Ternary Bonsai 1.7B is —.
Do Claude Mythos 5.1 and Ternary Bonsai 1.7B support reasoning and tool use?+
Claude Mythos 5.1: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Ternary Bonsai 1.7B: none of these features are definitively sourced. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, Claude Mythos 5.1 or Ternary Bonsai 1.7B?+
Claude Mythos 5.1 has 1 sourced provider route; Ternary Bonsai 1.7B has 0, so Claude Mythos 5.1 has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, Claude Mythos 5.1 or Ternary Bonsai 1.7B?+
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.