Model A

Anthropic

83.1/100

Supported · Public rank #2

90% interval 78.9–87.3

Claude Opus 5 vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B

Updated August 19, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Model B

Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B

Ornith AI

49.3/100

Estimated · Public rank #136

90% interval 39.4–59.1

Decision reading

Claude Opus 5 has the higher public score, 83.1 versus 49.27, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.

10 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 5
Claude Opus 5 leads on the same 2 weighted benchmark rows.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Claude Opus 5
Claude Opus 5 leads on the same 1 weighted benchmark row.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Claude Opus 5
Claude Opus 5 has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented

Show secondary and unsupported calls

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: listed-rates
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.

53 Claude Opus 5 only

10 Shared

8 Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B only

Shared results: 10
Claude Opus 5 only: 53
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B only: 8
Like-for-like categories: 2 / 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

Like-for-like

Claude Opus 5: 90.8
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B: 67.6
Weighted basis: 1 vs 1 rows
Reading: Claude Opus 5 leads

Coding

Like-for-like

Claude Opus 5: 89.5
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B: 71.5
Weighted basis: 2 vs 2 rows
Reading: Claude Opus 5 leads

Knowledge

Directional only

Claude Opus 5: 64.7
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B: 34.2
Weighted basis: 1 vs 2 rows
Reading: Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable

Claude Opus 5: 90.4
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B: Not measured
Weighted basis: 1 vs 0 rows
Reading: Not comparable

Math

Not comparable

Claude Opus 5: Not measured
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B: Not measured
Weighted basis: 0 vs 0 rows
Reading: Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable

Claude Opus 5: Not measured
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B: Not measured
Weighted basis: 0 vs 0 rows
Reading: Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable

Claude Opus 5: 66.9
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B: Not measured
Weighted basis: 1 vs 0 rows
Reading: Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable

Claude Opus 5: Not measured
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B: Not measured
Weighted basis: 0 vs 0 rows
Reading: Not comparable

Category averages with the server-provided evidence basis for Claude Opus 5 and Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
Category	Claude Opus 5	Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B	Weighted basis	Reading
Agentic	90.8	67.6	Like-for-like1 vs 1 rows	Claude Opus 5 leads
Coding	89.5	71.5	Like-for-like2 vs 2 rows	Claude Opus 5 leads
Knowledge	64.7	34.2	Directional only1 vs 2 rows	Directional only
Reasoning	90.4	Not measured	Not comparable1 vs 0 rows	Not comparable
Math	Not measured	Not measured	Not comparable0 vs 0 rows	Not comparable
Multilingual	Not measured	Not measured	Not comparable0 vs 0 rows	Not comparable
Multimodal	66.9	Not measured	Not comparable1 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.

HLE
Knowledge
Claude Opus 5: 64.7%Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B: 25.6%Normalized gap 39.1Claude Opus 5 source Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B source
BrowseComp
Agentic
Claude Opus 5: 90.8%Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B: 67.6%Normalized gap 23.2Claude Opus 5 source Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B source
SWE-bench Pro
Coding
Claude Opus 5: 79.2%Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B: 59.6%Normalized gap 19.6Claude Opus 5 source Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B source
SWE-bench Verified
Coding
Claude Opus 5: 96%Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B: 79%Normalized gap 17.0Claude Opus 5 source Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B 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 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.

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

Anthropic model overview

Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B

262K

Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B model card

API model ID

Claude Opus 5

claude-opus-5

Anthropic model overview

Ornith-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 pricing

Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B

No comparable hosted API rate

Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B model card

Documented inputs

Claude Opus 5

text, image

Anthropic model overview

Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Claude Opus 5

text

Anthropic model overview

Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B

Not sourced

Provider availability

Claude Opus 5

Generally Available · Claude API

Anthropic model overview

Ornith-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 score, 83.1 versus 49.27, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
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.

Benchmark evidence

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

Browse raw public benchmark evidence71 rows

Agentic

Terminal-Bench 3.0
Claude Opus 542.7%
Source
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable
BrowseComp
Claude Opus 590.8%
Source
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B67.6%
Source
Claude Opus 5 leads this result
HLE w/ tools
Claude Opus 564.7%
Source
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B33.4%
Source
Claude Opus 5 leads this result
DeepSearchQA
Claude Opus 595.0%
Source
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable
DRACO
Claude Opus 588.6%
Source
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable
BrowseComp (10-agent, prerelease)
Claude Opus 593.6%
Source
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Claude Opus 570.6%
Source
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Claude Opus 585.8%
Source
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B70.2%
Source
Claude Opus 5 leads this result
MCP-Atlas claim coverage
Claude Opus 589.1%
Source
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable
LAB all-pass (Anthropic harness)
Claude Opus 523.58%
Source
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable
LAB criterion-pass (Anthropic harness)
Claude Opus 593.74%
Source
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable
LAB all-pass (Harvey held-out)
Claude Opus 511.7%
Source
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable
LAB criterion-pass (Harvey held-out)
Claude Opus 594.1%
Source
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
Claude Opus 580.6%
Source
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B48.7%
Source
Claude Opus 5 leads this result
Toolathlon Verified Pass@3
Claude Opus 587.0%
Source
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable
Toolathlon Verified Pass³
Claude Opus 573.1%
Source
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable
Toolathlon Verified avg. turns
Claude Opus 523.5 turns
Source
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable
AutomationBench
Claude Opus 526.0%
Source
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Claude Opus 5—
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B67.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
WideResearch
Claude Opus 5—
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B67.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Claude Opus 5—
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B72.5%
Source
Not directly comparable

Coding

SWE-bench Verified
Claude Opus 596%
Source
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B79%
Source
Claude Opus 5 leads this result
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Opus 579.2%
Source
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B59.6%
Source
Claude Opus 5 leads this result
SWE Multilingual
Claude Opus 589.5%
Source
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B71.4%
Source
Claude Opus 5 leads this result
SWE Multimodal
Claude Opus 559.4%
Source
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable
deepSwe
Claude Opus 568.8%
Source
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B22%
Source
Claude Opus 5 leads this result
FrontierCode 1.1 Main
Claude Opus 553.4%
Source
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Extended
Claude Opus 563.6%
Source
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable
ProgramBench (episode 1)
Claude Opus 583.0%
Source
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable
ProgramBench
Claude Opus 593.0%
Source
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable
cursorBench32
Claude Opus 570.0%
Source
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable
VulcanBench v3
Claude Opus 587.0%
Source
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Claude Opus 5—
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B67.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
frontierBench
Claude Opus 5—
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B5.1%
Source
Not directly comparable
NL2Repo
Claude Opus 5—
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B46.2%
Source
Not directly comparable

Reasoning

ARC-AGI-1
Claude Opus 597.50%
Source
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable
ARC-AGI-2
Claude Opus 590.4%
Source
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable
ARC-AGI-3
Claude Opus 530.2%
Source
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable

Knowledge

HLE
Claude Opus 564.7%
Source
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B25.6%
Source
Claude Opus 5 leads this result
HLE w/o tools
Claude Opus 556.3%
Source
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B25.6%
Source
Claude Opus 5 leads this result
HealthBench (raw)
Claude Opus 567.1%
Source
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable
HealthBench (length-adjusted)
Claude Opus 557.8%
Source
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable
HealthBench Professional
Claude Opus 559.8%
Source
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable
HealthBench Professional (raw)
Claude Opus 573.4%
Source
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable
BioMysteryBench (human-solvable)
Claude Opus 590.1%
Source
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable
BioMysteryBench (human-difficult)
Claude Opus 549.4%
Source
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable
SpatialBench Verified
Claude Opus 572.5%
Source
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable
SingleCellBench
Claude Opus 560.6%
Source
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable
ProteinGym Hard
Claude Opus 547.7%
Source
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable
Protein Design
Claude Opus 542.5%
Source
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable
Organic chemistry V2
Claude Opus 561.6%
Source
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable
Protocols (troubleshooting)
Claude Opus 561.1%
Source
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable
Protocols (understanding)
Claude Opus 578.4%
Source
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable
GPQA
Claude Opus 5—
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B89.2%
Source
Not directly comparable
GPQA-D
Claude Opus 5—
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B89.2%
Source
Not directly comparable

Math

IMO 2026
Claude Opus 542/42
Source
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable
RiemannBench (no tools)
Claude Opus 560.0%
Source
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable
RiemannBench (tools)
Claude Opus 579.0%
Source
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable
ArXivMath Jun. 2026 (no tools)
Claude Opus 590.8%
Source
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable
ArXivMath Jun. 2026 (tools)
Claude Opus 591.3%
Source
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable

Multilingual

GMMLU
Claude Opus 592.5%
Source
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable
MILU
Claude Opus 592.1%
Source
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable
INCLUDE
Claude Opus 589.8%
Source
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable

Multimodal

Chartography (no tools)
Claude Opus 529.6%
Source
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable
Chartography (tools)
Claude Opus 583.0%
Source
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable
BenchCAD Vision2Code (no tools)
Claude Opus 50.366
Source
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable
BenchCAD Vision2Code (tools)
Claude Opus 50.821
Source
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable
GDP.pdf (no tools)
Claude Opus 583.4%
Source
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable
GDP.pdf (tools)
Claude Opus 585.5%
Source
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable
OfficeQA
Claude Opus 578.1%
Source
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable
OfficeQA Pro
Claude Opus 566.9%
Source
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Claude Opus 5 or Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B?

Claude Opus 5 has the higher public score, 83.1 versus 49.27, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap. That is the clearest overall quality signal in the current public data.

Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 5 or Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B?

Claude Opus 5 leads the like-for-like coding comparison across 2 shared weighted benchmark rows.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 5 or Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B?

Claude Opus 5 leads the like-for-like agentic tasks comparison across 1 shared weighted benchmark row.

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.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated August 19, 2026

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 issue

Join 2,000+ readers.

Claude Opus 5 vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B

Which one for your work

Coding work

Agentic work

Long documents

Chat turn cost

Cache-heavy agent loop cost

Repository review cost

What is actually comparable

Category results, on a stated basis

Agentic

Coding

Knowledge

Reasoning

Math

Multilingual

Multimodal

Instruction following

Shape of the matched evidence

What each workload costs

Chat turn

Repository review

Cache-heavy agent loop

Specification differences

Context window

API model ID

Cached-input rate

Documented inputs

Documented outputs

Provider availability

Reasoning profile

Weight access

License

Release date

Benchmark evidence

Agentic

Coding

Reasoning

Knowledge

Math

Multilingual

Multimodal

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Claude Opus 5 or Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B?

Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 5 or Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B?

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 5 or Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B?

Which costs less, Claude Opus 5 or Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B?

Which has the larger context window, Claude Opus 5 or Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B?

Related comparisons

Watch Claude Opus 5 vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B