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
Composer 2.5

Cursor

—

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

Composer 2.5 vs Ornith-1.0-35B

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

Model B
Ornith-1.0-35B

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.

3 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.

  • Agentic work

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

    Composer 2.5

    Composer 2.5 leads on the same 1 weighted benchmark row.

    Confidence: limited

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    Ornith-1.0-35B

    Ornith-1.0-35B has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented

Show secondary and unsupported calls

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.

    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

    The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Composer 2.5 does not fit this workload in one request. Composer 2.5 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.

    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
3
Composer 2.5 only
2
Ornith-1.0-35B only
4
Like-for-like categories
1 / 8

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
Composer 2.5
69.3
Ornith-1.0-35B
64.2
Weighted basis
1 vs 1 rows
Reading
Composer 2.5 leads

Coding

Not comparable
Composer 2.5
Not measured
Ornith-1.0-35B
65.9
Weighted basis
0 vs 2 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Composer 2.5
Not measured
Ornith-1.0-35B
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
Composer 2.5
Not measured
Ornith-1.0-35B
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Composer 2.5
Not measured
Ornith-1.0-35B
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Composer 2.5
Not measured
Ornith-1.0-35B
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Composer 2.5
Not measured
Ornith-1.0-35B
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Composer 2.5
Not measured
Ornith-1.0-35B
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

Composer 2.5
$0.00175
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

Composer 2.5
$0.0325
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

Composer 2.5
$0.135
Does not fit 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

Composer 2.5 does not fit this workload in one request. Composer 2.5 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.

Context window

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

Composer 2.5

200K

Ornith-1.0-35B

256K

API model ID

Composer 2.5

Not sourced

Ornith-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.

Composer 2.5

Not published

Ornith-1.0-35B

No comparable hosted API rate

Documented inputs

Composer 2.5

Not sourced

Ornith-1.0-35B

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Composer 2.5

Not sourced

Ornith-1.0-35B

Not sourced

Provider availability

Composer 2.5

Not sourced

Ornith-1.0-35B

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Composer 2.5

Reasoning

Ornith-1.0-35B

Reasoning

Weight access

Composer 2.5

Proprietary

Ornith-1.0-35B

Open Weight

License

Composer 2.5

Proprietary

Ornith-1.0-35B

Open Weight

Release date

Composer 2.5

2026-05-18

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
Ornith-1.0-35B has the larger documented window (256K).

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 evidence9 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Composer 2.569.3%
    Source
    Ornith-1.0-35B64.2%
    Source

    Composer 2.5 leads this result

  • Claw-Eval

    Composer 2.5—
    Ornith-1.0-35B69.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Composer 2.569.3%
    Source
    Ornith-1.0-35B64.2%
    Source

    Composer 2.5 leads this result

  • SWE Multilingual

    Composer 2.579.8%
    Source
    Ornith-1.0-35B69.3%
    Source

    Composer 2.5 leads this result

  • cursorBench31

    Composer 2.563.2%
    Source
    Ornith-1.0-35B—

    Not directly comparable

  • cursorBench32

    Composer 2.556.1%
    Source
    Ornith-1.0-35B—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Composer 2.5—
    Ornith-1.0-35B75.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Composer 2.5—
    Ornith-1.0-35B50.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • NL2Repo

    Composer 2.5—
    Ornith-1.0-35B34.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Composer 2.5 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, Composer 2.5 or Ornith-1.0-35B?

The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Composer 2.5 or Ornith-1.0-35B?

Composer 2.5 leads the like-for-like agentic tasks comparison across 1 shared weighted benchmark row.

Which costs less, Composer 2.5 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, Composer 2.5 or Ornith-1.0-35B?

Ornith-1.0-35B has the larger documented context window: 256K, compared with 200K.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated August 13, 2026

Watch Composer 2.5 vs Ornith-1.0-35B

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

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.