Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Claude Sonnet 5
94
Ornith-1.0-35B
67
Pick Claude Sonnet 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Ornith-1.0-35B only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Agentic
+17.6 difference
Claude Sonnet 5
Ornith-1.0-35B
$3 / $15
$0 / $0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1M
262K
Pick Claude Sonnet 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Ornith-1.0-35B only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Claude Sonnet 5 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 94 to 67. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Sonnet 5's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 81.8 against 64.2. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 80.4% to 64.2%.
Claude Sonnet 5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $3.00 input / $15.00 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 Sonnet 5 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 262K for Ornith-1.0-35B.
Claude Sonnet 5 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 94 to 67. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 80.4% and 64.2%.
Claude Sonnet 5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 81.8 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.