Skip to main content
Radar

Five or fewer confirmed AI changes, with original sources, on mornings when something changed.A free source-linked morning brief.

Start free brief
BenchLM
Model A
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)

Anthropic

72.1/100

Estimated · Public rank #14

90% interval 62.3–82.0

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) vs Ornith-1.0-9B

Updated August 13, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Model B
Ornith-1.0-9B

DeepReinforce AI

—

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

Decision reading

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.

4 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Which one for your work

Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads on the same 2 weighted benchmark rows.

    Confidence: limited

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented

Show secondary and unsupported calls

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.

    Confidence: limited

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

    200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: rate-fallback

  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

Shared results
4
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only
17
Ornith-1.0-9B only
3
Like-for-like categories
1 / 8

1 category uses different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.

Coding

Like-for-like
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
78.6
Ornith-1.0-9B
59.2
Weighted basis
2 vs 2 rows
Reading
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads

Agentic

Directional only
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
75.1
Ornith-1.0-9B
43.1
Weighted basis
3 vs 1 rows
Reading
Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
75.8
Ornith-1.0-9B
Not measured
Weighted basis
1 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
60.0
Ornith-1.0-9B
Not measured
Weighted basis
2 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Not measured
Ornith-1.0-9B
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Not measured
Ornith-1.0-9B
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
65.1
Ornith-1.0-9B
Not measured
Weighted basis
2 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Not measured
Ornith-1.0-9B
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Shape of the matched evidence

Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.

Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.

Chat turn

1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
$0.0175
Fits in one request
Ornith-1.0-9B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

Ornith-1.0-9B has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
$0.325
Fits in one request
Ornith-1.0-9B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

Ornith-1.0-9B has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
$1.35
Fits in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Ornith-1.0-9B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Ornith-1.0-9B has no comparable published API token rate.

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)

1M

Ornith-1.0-9B

256K

API model ID

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)

Not sourced

Ornith-1.0-9B

Not sourced

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)

Not published

Ornith-1.0-9B

No comparable hosted API rate

Documented inputs

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)

Not sourced

Ornith-1.0-9B

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)

Not sourced

Ornith-1.0-9B

Not sourced

Provider availability

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)

Not sourced

Ornith-1.0-9B

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)

Reasoning

Ornith-1.0-9B

Reasoning

Weight access

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)

Proprietary

Ornith-1.0-9B

Open Weight

License

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)

Proprietary

Ornith-1.0-9B

Open Weight

Release date

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)

2026-04-16

Ornith-1.0-9B

2026-06-01

If you already use one of these models
Deployment change
The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
Quality signal
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the larger documented window (1M).

Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence24 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)69.4%
    Source
    Ornith-1.0-9B43.1%
    Source

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads this result

  • BrowseComp

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)79.3%
    Source
    Ornith-1.0-9B—

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)77.3%
    Source
    Ornith-1.0-9B—

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld-Verified

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)78%
    Source
    Ornith-1.0-9B—

    Not directly comparable

  • CyberGym

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)73.1%
    Source
    Ornith-1.0-9B—

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld 2.0

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)18.2%
    Source
    Ornith-1.0-9B—

    Not directly comparable

  • JobBench

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)45.9%
    Source
    Ornith-1.0-9B—

    Not directly comparable

  • Claw-Eval

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Ornith-1.0-9B63.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)87.6%
    Source
    Ornith-1.0-9B69.4%
    Source

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads this result

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)64.3%
    Source
    Ornith-1.0-9B42.9%
    Source

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads this result

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)69.4%
    Source
    Ornith-1.0-9B43.1%
    Source

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads this result

  • SWE Multilingual

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Ornith-1.0-9B52%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • NL2Repo

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Ornith-1.0-9B27.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • MRCR v2 128K-256K

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)59.2%
    Source
    Ornith-1.0-9B—

    Not directly comparable

  • ARC-AGI-2

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.8%
    Source
    Ornith-1.0-9B—

    Not directly comparable

  • ARC-AGI-3

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)0.2%
    Source
    Ornith-1.0-9B—

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)94.2%
    Source
    Ornith-1.0-9B—

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA-D

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)94.2%
    Source
    Ornith-1.0-9B—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)54.7%
    Source
    Ornith-1.0-9B—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/o tools

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)46.9%
    Source
    Ornith-1.0-9B—

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • FrontierMath (legacy)

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)43.8%
    Source
    Ornith-1.0-9B—

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • OfficeQA Pro

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)43.6%
    Source
    Ornith-1.0-9B—

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)91%
    Source
    Ornith-1.0-9B—

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv w/o tools

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)82.1%
    Source
    Ornith-1.0-9B—

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Ornith-1.0-9B?

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Ornith-1.0-9B?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads the like-for-like coding comparison across 2 shared weighted benchmark rows.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Ornith-1.0-9B?

The current agentic tasks averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which costs less, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Ornith-1.0-9B?

Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.

Which has the larger context window, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Ornith-1.0-9B?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 256K.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated August 13, 2026

Watch Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) vs Ornith-1.0-9B

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.