Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Composer 2
71
Ornith-1.0-35B
67
Pick Composer 2 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Ornith-1.0-35B only becomes the better choice if agentic is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Agentic
+2.5 difference
Composer 2
Ornith-1.0-35B
$0.5 / $2.5
$0 / $0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
200K
262K
Pick Composer 2 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Ornith-1.0-35B only becomes the better choice if agentic is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Composer 2 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 71 to 67. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Composer 2 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.50 input / $2.50 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. Ornith-1.0-35B gives you the larger context window at 262K, compared with 200K for Composer 2.
Composer 2 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 71 to 67. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 61.7% and 64.2%.
Ornith-1.0-35B has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 64.2 versus 61.7. 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.