Coding
Directional only- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- 54.2
- Ornith-1.5-397B
- 78.0
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite 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 65.32, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled 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 3.5 Flash-Lite
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite 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.
4 Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite only
1 Shared
17 Ornith-1.5-397B only
- Shared results
- 1
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite only
- 4
- Ornith-1.5-397B only
- 17
- 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 3.5 Flash-Lite
- 63.4
- Ornith-1.5-397B
- 86.6
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- 72.2
- Ornith-1.5-397B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- Not measured
- Ornith-1.5-397B
- 51.1
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- Not measured
- Ornith-1.5-397B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- Not measured
- Ornith-1.5-397B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- Not measured
- Ornith-1.5-397B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- Not measured
- Ornith-1.5-397B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | Ornith-1.5-397B | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 54.2 | 78.0 | Directional only1 vs 2 rows | Directional only |
| Agentic | 63.4 | 86.6 | Not comparable2 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | 72.2 | Not measured | Not comparable1 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not measured | 51.1 | Not comparable0 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 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 Pro
Coding
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite: 54.2%Ornith-1.5-397B: 65.1%Normalized gap 10.9Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite 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
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- $0.00155
- 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
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- $0.0225
- 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
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- $0.037
- Fits in one request
- Ornith-1.5-397B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
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.
SpecificationGemini 3.5 Flash-LiteOrnith-1.5-397B
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Ornith-1.5-397B
API model ID
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
gemini-3.5-flash-lite
Google Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite model documentationOrnith-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.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
$0.03 per 1M cached input tokens
Google Gemini API pricingOrnith-1.5-397B
No comparable hosted API rate
Ornith-1.5-397B model cardDocumented inputs
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
text, image, video, audio, pdf
Google Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite model documentationOrnith-1.5-397B
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Ornith-1.5-397B
Not sourced
Provider availability
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Generally Available · Gemini API, Google AI Studio
Google latest Gemini model guideOrnith-1.5-397B
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Reasoning
Ornith-1.5-397B
Reasoning
Weight access
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Proprietary
Ornith-1.5-397B
Open Weight
License
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Proprietary
Ornith-1.5-397B
Open Weight
Release date
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
2026-07-21
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 65.32, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite 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 evidence22 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite54%SourceOrnith-1.5-397B—Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite74%SourceOrnith-1.5-397B—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Ornith-1.5-397B86.1%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE w/ tools
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Ornith-1.5-397B56.1%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Ornith-1.5-397B80%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Ornith-1.5-397B71.2%SourceNot directly comparable
WideResearch
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Ornith-1.5-397B80.8%SourceNot directly comparable
BrowseComp
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Ornith-1.5-397B86.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Ornith-1.5-397B81.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite54.0%SourceOrnith-1.5-397B—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite54.2%SourceOrnith-1.5-397B65.1%SourceOrnith-1.5-397B leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Ornith-1.5-397B86.1%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Ornith-1.5-397B86%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Ornith-1.5-397B79.6%SourceNot directly comparable
deepSwe
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Ornith-1.5-397B56%SourceNot directly comparable
frontierBench
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Ornith-1.5-397B13.5%SourceNot directly comparable
NL2Repo
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Ornith-1.5-397B59.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
MRCRv2
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite72.2%SourceOrnith-1.5-397B—Not directly comparable
Knowledge
GPQA
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Ornith-1.5-397B92.8%SourceNot directly comparable
GPQA-D
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Ornith-1.5-397B92.8%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Ornith-1.5-397B44.6%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Ornith-1.5-397B44.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or Ornith-1.5-397B?
Ornith-1.5-397B has the higher public score estimate, 68.5 versus 65.32, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
Which is better for coding, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite 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, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite 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, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite 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, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or Ornith-1.5-397B?
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 262K.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 19, 2026
Watch Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite 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.