Coding
Like-for-like- Claude Opus 4.8
- 81.1
- Ornith-1.0-35B
- 65.9
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8 vs Ornith-1.0-35B
Updated August 13, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
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.
5 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 4.8
Claude Opus 4.8 leads on the same 2 weighted benchmark rows.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Claude Opus 4.8
Claude Opus 4.8 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.
35 Claude Opus 4.8 only
5 Shared
2 Ornith-1.0-35B only
- Shared results
- 5
- Claude Opus 4.8 only
- 35
- Ornith-1.0-35B only
- 2
- 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.
Agentic
Directional only- Claude Opus 4.8
- 80.3
- Ornith-1.0-35B
- 64.2
- Weighted basis
- 3 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.8
- 72.1
- Ornith-1.0-35B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.8
- 62.7
- Ornith-1.0-35B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.8
- 53.9
- Ornith-1.0-35B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 3 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.8
- Not measured
- Ornith-1.0-35B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.8
- 77.0
- Ornith-1.0-35B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.8
- Not measured
- Ornith-1.0-35B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Opus 4.8 | Ornith-1.0-35B | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 81.1 | 65.9 | Like-for-like2 vs 2 rows | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| Agentic | 80.3 | 64.2 | Directional only3 vs 1 rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 72.1 | Not measured | Not comparable1 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | 62.7 | Not measured | Not comparable2 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 53.9 | Not measured | Not comparable3 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 77.0 | Not measured | Not comparable2 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | 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.
SWE-bench Pro
Coding
Claude Opus 4.8: 69.2%Ornith-1.0-35B: 50.4%Normalized gap 18.8Claude Opus 4.8 source Ornith-1.0-35B sourceSWE-bench Verified
Coding
Claude Opus 4.8: 88.6%Ornith-1.0-35B: 75.6%Normalized gap 13.0Claude Opus 4.8 source Ornith-1.0-35B sourceTerminal-Bench 2.0
Agentic
Claude Opus 4.8: 74.6%Ornith-1.0-35B: 64.2%Normalized gap 10.4Claude Opus 4.8 source Ornith-1.0-35B source
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 4.8
- $0.0175
- Fits in one request
- Ornith-1.0-35B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Ornith-1.0-35B has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Claude Opus 4.8
- $0.325
- Fits in one request
- Ornith-1.0-35B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Ornith-1.0-35B has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Claude Opus 4.8
- $1.35
- Fits in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
- Ornith-1.0-35B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
Claude Opus 4.8 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Ornith-1.0-35B 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.
SpecificationClaude Opus 4.8Ornith-1.0-35B
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Opus 4.8
Ornith-1.0-35B
256K
API model ID
Claude Opus 4.8
claude-opus-4-8
Anthropic model overviewOrnith-1.0-35B
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 4.8
Not published
Ornith-1.0-35B
No comparable hosted API rate
Documented inputs
Claude Opus 4.8
text, image
Anthropic model overviewOrnith-1.0-35B
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Claude Opus 4.8
Ornith-1.0-35B
Not sourced
Provider availability
Claude Opus 4.8
Generally Available · Claude API
Anthropic model overviewOrnith-1.0-35B
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Claude Opus 4.8
Reasoning
Ornith-1.0-35B
Reasoning
Weight access
Claude Opus 4.8
Proprietary
Ornith-1.0-35B
Open Weight
License
Claude Opus 4.8
Proprietary
Ornith-1.0-35B
Open Weight
Release date
Claude Opus 4.8
2026-05-28
Ornith-1.0-35B
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 4.8 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 evidence42 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 3.0
Claude Opus 4.821.1%SourceOrnith-1.0-35B—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Opus 4.874.6%SourceOrnith-1.0-35B64.2%SourceClaude Opus 4.8 leads this result
BrowseComp
Claude Opus 4.884.3%SourceOrnith-1.0-35B—Not directly comparable
DeepSearchQA
Claude Opus 4.893.1%SourceOrnith-1.0-35B—Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Opus 4.883.4%SourceOrnith-1.0-35B—Not directly comparable
Finance Agent v2
Claude Opus 4.853.9%SourceOrnith-1.0-35B—Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Claude Opus 4.882.2%SourceOrnith-1.0-35B—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon
Claude Opus 4.859.9%SourceOrnith-1.0-35B—Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Claude Opus 4.872.97%SourceOrnith-1.0-35B—Not directly comparable
ResearchClawBench
Claude Opus 4.821.1%SourceOrnith-1.0-35B—Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Claude Opus 4.820.6%SourceOrnith-1.0-35B—Not directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Claude Opus 4.8—Ornith-1.0-35B69.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Claude Opus 4.888.6%SourceOrnith-1.0-35B75.6%SourceClaude Opus 4.8 leads this result
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Opus 4.869.2%SourceOrnith-1.0-35B50.4%SourceClaude Opus 4.8 leads this result
SWE Multilingual
Claude Opus 4.884.4%SourceOrnith-1.0-35B69.3%SourceClaude Opus 4.8 leads this result
SWE Multimodal
Claude Opus 4.838.4%SourceOrnith-1.0-35B—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Opus 4.874.6%SourceOrnith-1.0-35B64.2%SourceClaude Opus 4.8 leads this result
cursorBench31
Claude Opus 4.858.4%SourceOrnith-1.0-35B—Not directly comparable
cursorBench32
Claude Opus 4.862.3%SourceOrnith-1.0-35B—Not directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Main
Claude Opus 4.846.5%SourceOrnith-1.0-35B—Not directly comparable
APEX-SWE
Claude Opus 4.843.9%SourceOrnith-1.0-35B—Not directly comparable
EEBench
Claude Opus 4.851.4%SourceOrnith-1.0-35B—Not directly comparable
3DCodeBench
Claude Opus 4.847.0%SourceOrnith-1.0-35B—Not directly comparable
CADGenBench Generation
Claude Opus 4.827.4%SourceOrnith-1.0-35B—Not directly comparable
SpaceXAI MTS Eval
Claude Opus 4.855.8%SourceOrnith-1.0-35B—Not directly comparable
InferenceEval
Claude Opus 4.840.7%SourceOrnith-1.0-35B—Not directly comparable
KernelBench Internal
Claude Opus 4.867.6%SourceOrnith-1.0-35B—Not directly comparable
NL2Repo
Claude Opus 4.8—Ornith-1.0-35B34.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Knowledge
Math
Multilingual
INCLUDE
Claude Opus 4.887.6%SourceOrnith-1.0-35B—Not directly comparable
Multimodal
OfficeQA Pro
Claude Opus 4.866.2%SourceOrnith-1.0-35B—Not directly comparable
ScreenSpot Pro
Claude Opus 4.887.9%SourceOrnith-1.0-35B—Not directly comparable
CharXiv
Claude Opus 4.889.9%SourceOrnith-1.0-35B—Not directly comparable
CharXiv w/o tools
Claude Opus 4.880.5%SourceOrnith-1.0-35B—Not directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.8 or Ornith-1.0-35B?
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 4.8 or Ornith-1.0-35B?
Claude Opus 4.8 leads the like-for-like coding comparison across 2 shared weighted benchmark rows.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.8 or Ornith-1.0-35B?
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 4.8 or Ornith-1.0-35B?
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 4.8 or Ornith-1.0-35B?
Claude Opus 4.8 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 256K.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 13, 2026
Watch Claude Opus 4.8 vs Ornith-1.0-35B
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.