Coding
Directional only- Gemini 2.5 Pro
- 63.8
- Ornith-1.0-35B
- 65.9
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Ornith-1.0-35B
Updated August 13, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
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.
1 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
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Gemini 2.5 Pro 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
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
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.
6 Gemini 2.5 Pro only
1 Shared
6 Ornith-1.0-35B only
- Shared results
- 1
- Gemini 2.5 Pro only
- 6
- Ornith-1.0-35B only
- 6
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
1 category uses 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.
Agentic
Not comparable- Gemini 2.5 Pro
- Not measured
- Ornith-1.0-35B
- 64.2
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Gemini 2.5 Pro
- Not measured
- Ornith-1.0-35B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Gemini 2.5 Pro
- 27.4
- Ornith-1.0-35B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Gemini 2.5 Pro
- 11.6
- Ornith-1.0-35B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Gemini 2.5 Pro
- Not measured
- Ornith-1.0-35B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Gemini 2.5 Pro
- Not measured
- Ornith-1.0-35B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Gemini 2.5 Pro
- Not measured
- Ornith-1.0-35B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Ornith-1.0-35B | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 63.8 | 65.9 | Directional only1 vs 2 rows | Directional only |
| Agentic | Not measured | 64.2 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | 27.4 | Not measured | Not comparable2 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 11.6 | Not measured | Not comparable2 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 | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 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
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 63.8%Ornith-1.0-35B: 75.6%Normalized gap 11.8Gemini 2.5 Pro source Ornith-1.0-35B 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
- Gemini 2.5 Pro
- $0.00625
- 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
- Gemini 2.5 Pro
- $0.0925
- 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
- Gemini 2.5 Pro
- $0.15
- Fits in one request
- Ornith-1.0-35B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
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.
SpecificationGemini 2.5 ProOrnith-1.0-35B
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Ornith-1.0-35B
256K
API model ID
Gemini 2.5 Pro
gemini-2.5-pro
Google Gemini API pricingOrnith-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.
Gemini 2.5 Pro
$0.125 per 1M cached input tokens
Google Gemini API pricingOrnith-1.0-35B
No comparable hosted API rate
Documented inputs
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Not sourced
Ornith-1.0-35B
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Not sourced
Ornith-1.0-35B
Not sourced
Provider availability
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Not sourced
Ornith-1.0-35B
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Non-Reasoning
Ornith-1.0-35B
Reasoning
Weight access
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Proprietary
Ornith-1.0-35B
Open Weight
License
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Proprietary
Ornith-1.0-35B
Open Weight
Release date
Gemini 2.5 Pro
2025-03-01
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
- Gemini 2.5 Pro has the larger documented window (1M).
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 evidence13 rows
Agentic
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Gemini 2.5 Pro63.8%SourceOrnith-1.0-35B75.6%SourceOrnith-1.0-35B leads this result
Vibe Code Bench
Gemini 2.5 Pro0.40%SourceOrnith-1.0-35B—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Gemini 2.5 Pro—Ornith-1.0-35B50.4%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
Gemini 2.5 Pro—Ornith-1.0-35B69.3%SourceNot directly comparable
NL2Repo
Gemini 2.5 Pro—Ornith-1.0-35B34.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Gemini 2.5 Pro—Ornith-1.0-35B64.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
Math
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Gemini 2.5 Pro 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, Gemini 2.5 Pro or Ornith-1.0-35B?
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, Gemini 2.5 Pro or Ornith-1.0-35B?
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, Gemini 2.5 Pro 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, Gemini 2.5 Pro or Ornith-1.0-35B?
Gemini 2.5 Pro has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 256K.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 13, 2026
Watch Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Ornith-1.0-35B
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.