Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
GPT-5.2
79
Ornith-1.0-9B
52
Pick GPT-5.2 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Ornith-1.0-9B only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Agentic
+12.1 difference
Coding
+4.7 difference
GPT-5.2
Ornith-1.0-9B
$1.75 / $14
$0 / $0
73 t/s
N/A
130.34s
N/A
400K
262K
Pick GPT-5.2 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Ornith-1.0-9B only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
GPT-5.2 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 79 to 52. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
GPT-5.2's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 55.2 against 43.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Verified, 80% to 69.4%. Ornith-1.0-9B does hit back in coding, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
GPT-5.2 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.75 input / $14.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Ornith-1.0-9B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. GPT-5.2 gives you the larger context window at 400K, compared with 262K for Ornith-1.0-9B.
GPT-5.2 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 79 to 52. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 80% and 69.4%.
Ornith-1.0-9B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 69.4 versus 64.7. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
GPT-5.2 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 55.2 versus 43.1. Ornith-1.0-9B 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.