Coding
Directional only- DeepSeek V3
- 38.9
- Ornith-1.5-397B
- 78.0
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
DeepSeek V3 vs Ornith-1.5-397B
Updated August 19, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
Ornith-1.5-397B has the higher public score estimate, 68.5 versus 44.3, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
2 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.
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Ornith-1.5-397B
Ornith-1.5-397B 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
The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
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. DeepSeek V3 does not fit this workload in one request. Ornith-1.5-397B has no comparable published API token rate.
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.
4 DeepSeek V3 only
2 Shared
16 Ornith-1.5-397B only
- Shared results
- 2
- DeepSeek V3 only
- 4
- Ornith-1.5-397B only
- 16
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
2 categories use 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.
Knowledge
Directional only- DeepSeek V3
- 72.7
- Ornith-1.5-397B
- 51.1
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Agentic
Not comparable- DeepSeek V3
- Not measured
- Ornith-1.5-397B
- 86.6
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- DeepSeek V3
- Not measured
- Ornith-1.5-397B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- DeepSeek V3
- 1.7
- Ornith-1.5-397B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- DeepSeek V3
- Not measured
- Ornith-1.5-397B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- DeepSeek V3
- Not measured
- Ornith-1.5-397B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- DeepSeek V3
- 86.1
- Ornith-1.5-397B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | DeepSeek V3 | Ornith-1.5-397B | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 38.9 | 78.0 | Directional only2 vs 2 rows | Directional only |
| Knowledge | 72.7 | 51.1 | Directional only2 vs 2 rows | Directional only |
| Agentic | Not measured | 86.6 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 1.7 | Not measured | Not comparable1 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | 86.1 | Not measured | Not comparable1 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.
SWE-bench Verified
Coding
GPQA
Knowledge
DeepSeek V3: 59.1%Ornith-1.5-397B: 92.8%Normalized gap 33.7DeepSeek V3 source Ornith-1.5-397B 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
- DeepSeek V3
- $0.00082
- Fits in one request
- Ornith-1.5-397B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Ornith-1.5-397B has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- DeepSeek V3
- $0.0168
- Fits in one request
- Ornith-1.5-397B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Ornith-1.5-397B has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- DeepSeek V3
- $0.0304
- Does not fit in one request
- Ornith-1.5-397B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
DeepSeek V3 does not fit this workload in one request. Ornith-1.5-397B 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.
SpecificationDeepSeek V3Ornith-1.5-397B
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
DeepSeek V3
128K
Ornith-1.5-397B
API model ID
DeepSeek V3
Not sourced
Ornith-1.5-397B
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
DeepSeek V3
$0.07 per 1M cached input tokens
Ornith-1.5-397B
No comparable hosted API rate
Ornith-1.5-397B model cardDocumented inputs
DeepSeek V3
Not sourced
Ornith-1.5-397B
Not sourced
Documented outputs
DeepSeek V3
Not sourced
Ornith-1.5-397B
Not sourced
Provider availability
DeepSeek V3
Not sourced
Ornith-1.5-397B
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
DeepSeek V3
Non-Reasoning
Ornith-1.5-397B
Reasoning
Weight access
DeepSeek V3
Open Weight
Ornith-1.5-397B
Open Weight
License
DeepSeek V3
Open Weight
Ornith-1.5-397B
Open Weight
Release date
DeepSeek V3
2024-12-26
Ornith-1.5-397B
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
- Ornith-1.5-397B has the higher public score estimate, 68.5 versus 44.3, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Ornith-1.5-397B has the larger documented window (262K).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
DeepSeek V3
API / mo$1,028
Self-host / mo$18,221
Break-even1.2B/day
Ornith-1.5-397B
API / mo$0
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even—
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence22 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.1
DeepSeek V3—Ornith-1.5-397B86.1%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE w/ tools
DeepSeek V3—Ornith-1.5-397B56.1%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP Atlas
DeepSeek V3—Ornith-1.5-397B80%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
DeepSeek V3—Ornith-1.5-397B71.2%SourceNot directly comparable
WideResearch
DeepSeek V3—Ornith-1.5-397B80.8%SourceNot directly comparable
BrowseComp
DeepSeek V3—Ornith-1.5-397B86.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Claw-Eval
DeepSeek V3—Ornith-1.5-397B81.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
LiveCodeBench
DeepSeek V337.6%SourceOrnith-1.5-397B—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
DeepSeek V342%SourceOrnith-1.5-397B86%SourceOrnith-1.5-397B leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.1
DeepSeek V3—Ornith-1.5-397B86.1%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
DeepSeek V3—Ornith-1.5-397B65.1%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
DeepSeek V3—Ornith-1.5-397B79.6%SourceNot directly comparable
deepSwe
DeepSeek V3—Ornith-1.5-397B56%SourceNot directly comparable
frontierBench
DeepSeek V3—Ornith-1.5-397B13.5%SourceNot directly comparable
NL2Repo
DeepSeek V3—Ornith-1.5-397B59.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
GPQA
DeepSeek V359.1%SourceOrnith-1.5-397B92.8%SourceOrnith-1.5-397B leads this result
MMLU-Pro
DeepSeek V375.9%SourceOrnith-1.5-397B—Not directly comparable
GPQA-D
DeepSeek V3—Ornith-1.5-397B92.8%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE
DeepSeek V3—Ornith-1.5-397B44.6%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
DeepSeek V3—Ornith-1.5-397B44.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
DeepSeek V31.724%SourceOrnith-1.5-397B—Not directly comparable
Instruction following
IFEval
DeepSeek V386.1%SourceOrnith-1.5-397B—Not directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, DeepSeek V3 or Ornith-1.5-397B?
Ornith-1.5-397B has the higher public score estimate, 68.5 versus 44.3, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
Which is better for coding, DeepSeek V3 or Ornith-1.5-397B?
The current coding averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which is better for agentic tasks, DeepSeek V3 or Ornith-1.5-397B?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.
Which costs less, DeepSeek V3 or Ornith-1.5-397B?
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, DeepSeek V3 or Ornith-1.5-397B?
Ornith-1.5-397B has the larger documented context window: 262K, compared with 128K.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 19, 2026
Watch DeepSeek V3 vs Ornith-1.5-397B
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.