Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Claude Opus 5
Claude Opus 5 has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Claude Opus 5 vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
Updated October 2, 2026. Rank says Claude Opus 5 is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
Both of these models will change. Get the price, version and retirement notices for the pair, each with its source. Follow model changes
Share or export
Decision reading
Claude Opus 5 has the higher public point estimate, 79.95 versus 32.61. Their conditional score ranges do not overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. 10 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
- Shared results
- 10
- Claude Opus 5 only
- 67
- Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B only
- 8
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Supported: Claude Opus 5 · Estimated: Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B. Conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.How the comparison works
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.
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limitedAgentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limitedChat 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-ratesCache-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: listed-ratesRepository 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
Which one for a specific job
Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.
The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.
72.0Claude Opus 524.0Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
Directional only · BenchAlign v5.8
Claude Opus 5 has the higher coding point estimate. Conditional score ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.
Same basis rules as the category table below
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
67 Claude Opus 5 only
10 Shared
8 Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B only
3 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
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.
HLEKnowledge
Normalized gap 39.1Claude Opus 5:64.7%Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B:25.6%HLE w/o toolsKnowledge
Normalized gap 30.7Claude Opus 5:56.3%Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B:25.6%BrowseCompAgentic
Normalized gap 23.2Claude Opus 5:90.8%Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B:67.6%SWE-bench ProCoding
Normalized gap 19.6Claude Opus 5:79.2%Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B:59.6%SWE MultilingualCoding
Normalized gap 18.1Claude Opus 5:89.5%Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B:71.4%
Bars run 0–100 on each benchmark’s normalized display scale
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
Agentic
Directional only- Claude Opus 5
- 77.6
- Supported · #3/119
- Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- 23.5
- Estimated · #95/119
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 20 vs 7 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Coding
Directional only- Claude Opus 5
- 72.0
- Supported · #7/144
- Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- 24.0
- Estimated · #110/144
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 18 vs 7 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Knowledge
Directional only- Claude Opus 5
- 80.2
- Supported · #7/171
- Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- 34.5
- Estimated · #119/171
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 19 vs 4 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude Opus 5
- 77.3
- #10/27
- Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Claude Opus 5
- 88.8
- #2/49
- Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Opus 5
- Not ranked
- Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude Opus 5
- Not ranked
- Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude Opus 5
- Not ranked
- Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Opus 5 | Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 77.6Supported · #3/119 | 23.5Estimated · #95/119 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 20 vs 7 public rows | Directional only |
| Coding | 72.0Supported · #7/144 | 24.0Estimated · #110/144 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 18 vs 7 public rows | Directional only |
| Knowledge | 80.2Supported · #7/171 | 34.5Estimated · #119/171 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 19 vs 4 public rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 77.3#10/27 | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 88.8#2/49 | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology
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 5
- $0.0175
- Fits in one request
- Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Claude Opus 5
- $0.325
- Fits in one request
- Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Claude Opus 5
- $0.45
- Fits in one request
- Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B has no comparable published API token rate.
Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationClaude Opus 5Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Opus 5
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
API model ID
Claude Opus 5
claude-opus-5
Anthropic model overviewOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B
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 5
$0.5 per 1M cached input tokens
Claude API pricingOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B
No comparable hosted API rate
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B model cardDocumented inputs
Claude Opus 5
text, image
Anthropic model overviewOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Claude Opus 5
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
Not sourced
Provider availability
Claude Opus 5
Generally Available · Claude API
Anthropic model overviewOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Claude Opus 5
Reasoning
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
Reasoning
Weight access
Claude Opus 5
Proprietary
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
Open Weight
License
Claude Opus 5
Proprietary
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
Open Weight
Release date
Claude Opus 5
2026-07-24
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
2026-08-18
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
- Claude Opus 5 has the higher public point estimate, 79.95 versus 32.61. Their conditional score ranges do not overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Claude Opus 5 has the larger documented window (1M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Questions
Which is better, Claude Opus 5 or Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B?
Claude Opus 5 has the higher public point estimate, 79.95 versus 32.61. Their conditional score ranges do not overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 5 or Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B?
Claude Opus 5 scores higher for coding on the public lane, 72 to 24. Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 5 or Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B?
Claude Opus 5 scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 77.6 to 23.5. Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic tasks, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for agentic tasks from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which costs less, Claude Opus 5 or Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B?
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 5 or Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B?
Claude Opus 5 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 262K.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence85 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 3.0
Claude Opus 542.7%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
BrowseComp
Claude Opus 590.8%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B67.6%SourceClaude Opus 5 leads this result
HLE w/ tools
Claude Opus 564.7%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B33.4%SourceClaude Opus 5 leads this result
DeepSearchQA
Claude Opus 595.0%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
DRACO
Claude Opus 588.6%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
BrowseComp (10-agent, prerelease)
Claude Opus 593.6%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Claude Opus 570.6%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Claude Opus 585.8%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B70.2%SourceClaude Opus 5 leads this result
MCP-Atlas claim coverage
Claude Opus 589.1%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
LAB all-pass (Anthropic harness)
Claude Opus 523.58%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
LAB criterion-pass (Anthropic harness)
Claude Opus 593.74%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
LAB all-pass (Harvey held-out)
Claude Opus 511.7%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
LAB criterion-pass (Harvey held-out)
Claude Opus 594.1%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
Claude Opus 580.6%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B48.7%SourceClaude Opus 5 leads this result
Toolathlon Verified Pass@3
Claude Opus 587.0%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon Verified Pass³
Claude Opus 573.1%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon Verified avg. turns
Claude Opus 523.5 turnsSourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
AutomationBench
Claude Opus 526.0%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Claude Opus 584.6%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
ApprenticeBench
Claude Opus 536%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Claude Opus 5—Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B67.8%SourceNot directly comparable
WideResearch
Claude Opus 5—Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B67.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Claude Opus 5—Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B72.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
Bug Hunt Bench
Claude Opus 527 fixesSourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
Claude Opus 596%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B79%SourceClaude Opus 5 leads this result
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Opus 579.2%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B59.6%SourceClaude Opus 5 leads this result
SWE Multilingual
Claude Opus 589.5%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B71.4%SourceClaude Opus 5 leads this result
SWE Multimodal
Claude Opus 559.4%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
DeepSWE
Claude Opus 568.8%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B22.0%SourceClaude Opus 5 leads this result
FrontierCode 1.1 Main
Claude Opus 553.4%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Extended
Claude Opus 563.6%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
FrontierSWE v2
Claude Opus 552.0%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
ProgramBench (episode 1)
Claude Opus 583.0%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
ProgramBench
Claude Opus 593.0%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
CursorBench 3.2
Claude Opus 570.0%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
VulcanBench v3
Claude Opus 587.0%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
VulcanBench CII v1
Claude Opus 596.4%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Claude Opus 589.0%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
Claude Opus 597.0%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
CursorBench 4.0
Claude Opus 546.6%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
PostTrainBench v1.1
Claude Opus 535.0%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Claude Opus 5—Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B67.8%SourceNot directly comparable
frontierBench
Claude Opus 5—Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B5.1%SourceNot directly comparable
NL2Repo
Claude Opus 5—Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B46.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Multimodal
Chartography (no tools)
Claude Opus 529.6%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
Chartography (tools)
Claude Opus 583.0%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
BenchCAD Vision2Code (no tools)
Claude Opus 50.366SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
BenchCAD Vision2Code (tools)
Claude Opus 50.821SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
GDP.pdf (no tools)
Claude Opus 583.4%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
GDP.pdf (tools)
Claude Opus 585.5%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
OfficeQA
Claude Opus 578.1%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
OfficeQA Pro
Claude Opus 566.9%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
Knowledge
HLE
Claude Opus 564.7%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B25.6%SourceClaude Opus 5 leads this result
HLE w/o tools
Claude Opus 556.3%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B25.6%SourceClaude Opus 5 leads this result
HLE-Verified
Claude Opus 554.4%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
LABBench2
Claude Opus 584.2%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
HealthBench (raw)
Claude Opus 567.1%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
HealthBench (length-adjusted)
Claude Opus 557.8%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
HealthBench Professional
Claude Opus 559.8%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
HealthBench Professional (raw)
Claude Opus 573.4%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
BioMysteryBench (human-solvable)
Claude Opus 590.1%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
BioMysteryBench (human-difficult)
Claude Opus 549.4%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
SpatialBench Verified
Claude Opus 572.5%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
SingleCellBench
Claude Opus 560.6%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
ProteinGym Hard
Claude Opus 547.7%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
Protein Design
Claude Opus 542.5%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
Organic chemistry V2
Claude Opus 561.6%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
Protocols (troubleshooting)
Claude Opus 561.1%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
Protocols (understanding)
Claude Opus 578.4%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Claude Opus 593.4%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Claude Opus 591.6%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
GPQA
Claude Opus 5—Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B89.2%SourceNot directly comparable
GPQA-D
Claude Opus 5—Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B89.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Multilingual
Instruction following
Gray Swan IPI (15 attempts)
Claude Opus 54.6%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
Math
IMO 2026
Claude Opus 542/42SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
RiemannBench (no tools)
Claude Opus 560.0%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
RiemannBench (tools)
Claude Opus 579.0%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
ArXivMath Jun. 2026 (no tools)
Claude Opus 590.8%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
ArXivMath Jun. 2026 (tools)
Claude Opus 591.3%SourceOrnith-1.5-35B-A3B—Not directly comparable
85 public results · 10 shared
Watch Claude Opus 5 vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.
Last updated October 2, 2026