Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
83
Ornith-1.0-35B
67
Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) #10 · Ornith-1.0-35B unranked
Pick Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Ornith-1.0-35B only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Agentic
+10.7 difference
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Ornith-1.0-35B
$5 / $25
$0 / $0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1M
262K
Pick Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Ornith-1.0-35B only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 83 to 67. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)'s sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 74.9 against 64.2. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 69.4% to 64.2%.
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Ornith-1.0-35B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 262K for Ornith-1.0-35B.
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 83 to 67. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 69.4% and 64.2%.
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 74.9 versus 64.2. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.