Skip to main content
Radar

Five or fewer confirmed AI changes, with original sources, on mornings when something changed.A free source-linked morning brief.

Start free brief
BenchLM
Model A
Gemini 3.5 Flash

Google

64.3/100

Estimated · Public rank #37

90% interval 53.7–74.8

Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Ornith-1.0-35B

Updated August 13, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Model B
Ornith-1.0-35B

DeepReinforce AI

—

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

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.

3 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

    Gemini 3.5 Flash 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

    The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.

    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.

Shared results
3
Gemini 3.5 Flash only
20
Ornith-1.0-35B only
4
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.

Agentic

Directional only
Gemini 3.5 Flash
77.2
Ornith-1.0-35B
64.2
Weighted basis
2 vs 1 rows
Reading
Directional only

Coding

Directional only
Gemini 3.5 Flash
55.1
Ornith-1.0-35B
65.9
Weighted basis
1 vs 2 rows
Reading
Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash
74.7
Ornith-1.0-35B
Not measured
Weighted basis
2 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash
40.2
Ornith-1.0-35B
Not measured
Weighted basis
1 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash
32.9
Ornith-1.0-35B
Not measured
Weighted basis
2 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Not measured
Ornith-1.0-35B
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash
83.8
Ornith-1.0-35B
Not measured
Weighted basis
2 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Not measured
Ornith-1.0-35B
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
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.

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
$0.006
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 3.5 Flash
$0.102
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 3.5 Flash
$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.

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

Gemini 3.5 Flash

1M

Google Gemini API pricing

Ornith-1.0-35B

256K

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

$0.15 per 1M cached input tokens

Google Gemini API pricing

Ornith-1.0-35B

No comparable hosted API rate

Documented inputs

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Not sourced

Ornith-1.0-35B

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Not sourced

Ornith-1.0-35B

Not sourced

Provider availability

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Not sourced

Ornith-1.0-35B

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Reasoning

Ornith-1.0-35B

Reasoning

Weight access

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Proprietary

Ornith-1.0-35B

Open Weight

License

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Proprietary

Ornith-1.0-35B

Open Weight

Release date

Gemini 3.5 Flash

2026-05-19

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 3.5 Flash 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 evidence27 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Gemini 3.5 Flash76.2%
    Source
    Ornith-1.0-35B64.2%
    Source

    Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result

  • MCP Atlas

    Gemini 3.5 Flash83.6%
    Source
    Ornith-1.0-35B—

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon

    Gemini 3.5 Flash56.5%
    Source
    Ornith-1.0-35B—

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld-Verified

    Gemini 3.5 Flash78.4%
    Source
    Ornith-1.0-35B—

    Not directly comparable

  • Finance Agent v2

    Gemini 3.5 Flash57.9%
    Source
    Ornith-1.0-35B—

    Not directly comparable

  • Gert Labs

    Gemini 3.5 Flash61.85%
    Source
    Ornith-1.0-35B—

    Not directly comparable

  • ResearchClawBench

    Gemini 3.5 Flash18.0%
    Source
    Ornith-1.0-35B—

    Not directly comparable

  • Claw-Eval

    Gemini 3.5 Flash—
    Ornith-1.0-35B69.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Gemini 3.5 Flash76.2%
    Source
    Ornith-1.0-35B64.2%
    Source

    Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Gemini 3.5 Flash55.1%
    Source
    Ornith-1.0-35B50.4%
    Source

    Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result

  • Vibe Code Bench

    Gemini 3.5 Flash48.68%
    Source
    Ornith-1.0-35B—

    Not directly comparable

  • cursorBench31

    Gemini 3.5 Flash49.8%
    Source
    Ornith-1.0-35B—

    Not directly comparable

  • cursorBench32

    Gemini 3.5 Flash48.8%
    Source
    Ornith-1.0-35B—

    Not directly comparable

  • EEBench

    Gemini 3.5 Flash34.3%
    Source
    Ornith-1.0-35B—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Gemini 3.5 Flash—
    Ornith-1.0-35B75.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE Multilingual

    Gemini 3.5 Flash—
    Ornith-1.0-35B69.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • NL2Repo

    Gemini 3.5 Flash—
    Ornith-1.0-35B34.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • MRCRv2

    Gemini 3.5 Flash77.3%
    Source
    Ornith-1.0-35B—

    Not directly comparable

  • MRCR 1M

    Gemini 3.5 Flash26.6%
    Source
    Ornith-1.0-35B—

    Not directly comparable

  • ARC-AGI-2

    Gemini 3.5 Flash72.1%
    Source
    Ornith-1.0-35B—

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA-D

    Gemini 3.5 Flash92.7%
    Source
    Ornith-1.0-35B—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE

    Gemini 3.5 Flash40.2%
    Source
    Ornith-1.0-35B—

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Gemini 3.5 Flash38.966%
    Source
    Ornith-1.0-35B—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Gemini 3.5 Flash14.583%
    Source
    Ornith-1.0-35B—

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • CharXiv

    Gemini 3.5 Flash84.2%
    Source
    Ornith-1.0-35B—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMMU-Pro

    Gemini 3.5 Flash83.6%
    Source
    Ornith-1.0-35B—

    Not directly comparable

  • Blueprint-Bench 2

    Gemini 3.5 Flash33.6%
    Source
    Ornith-1.0-35B—

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Gemini 3.5 Flash 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 3.5 Flash 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 3.5 Flash or Ornith-1.0-35B?

The current agentic tasks 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 costs less, Gemini 3.5 Flash 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 3.5 Flash or Ornith-1.0-35B?

Gemini 3.5 Flash has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 256K.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated August 13, 2026

Watch Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Ornith-1.0-35B

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.