Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
GPT-5.4 nano
59
Ornith-1.0-9B
52
Pick GPT-5.4 nano if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Ornith-1.0-9B only becomes the better choice if agentic is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Agentic
+0.2 difference
GPT-5.4 nano
Ornith-1.0-9B
$0.2 / $1.25
$0 / $0
191 t/s
N/A
3.64s
N/A
400K
262K
Pick GPT-5.4 nano if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Ornith-1.0-9B only becomes the better choice if agentic is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
GPT-5.4 nano is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 59 to 52. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
GPT-5.4 nano is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.20 input / $1.25 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-5.4 nano gives you the larger context window at 400K, compared with 262K for Ornith-1.0-9B.
GPT-5.4 nano is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 59 to 52. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 46.3% and 43.1%.
Ornith-1.0-9B has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 43.1 versus 42.9. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.