Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
DeepSeek V3.2
56
Ornith-1.0-397B
96
Pick Ornith-1.0-397B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. DeepSeek V3.2 only becomes the better choice if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Coding
+21.5 difference
DeepSeek V3.2
Ornith-1.0-397B
$0.28 / $0.42
$0 / $0
35 t/s
N/A
3.75s
N/A
128K
262K
Pick Ornith-1.0-397B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. DeepSeek V3.2 only becomes the better choice if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Ornith-1.0-397B is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 96 to 56. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Ornith-1.0-397B's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 82.4 against 60.9.
DeepSeek V3.2 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.28 input / $0.42 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Ornith-1.0-397B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Ornith-1.0-397B is the reasoning model in the pair, while DeepSeek V3.2 is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Ornith-1.0-397B gives you the larger context window at 262K, compared with 128K for DeepSeek V3.2.
Ornith-1.0-397B is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 96 to 56.
Ornith-1.0-397B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 82.4 versus 60.9. DeepSeek V3.2 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.