Model comparison
Grok Code Fast 1 vs Ornith-1.0-397B
Head-to-head evidence from 1 shared benchmark result across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Grok Code Fast 1 #180 (Supported); Ornith-1.0-397B unranked (Not scored). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Grok Code Fast 1 and Ornith-1.0-397B share 1 comparable benchmark result. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 11 results are unique to Grok Code Fast 1; 6 to Ornith-1.0-397B.
Updated July 18, 2026- Shared results
- 1
- Grok Code Fast 1 only
- 11
- Ornith-1.0-397B only
- 6
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. Grok Code Fast 1 makes more sense if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model; Ornith-1.0-397B is the better fit if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 1 shared benchmark result across 1 evidence category; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Grok Code Fast 1 and Ornith-1.0-397B finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.
Grok Code Fast 1 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.20 input / $1.50 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Ornith-1.0-397B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Ornith-1.0-397B is the reasoning model in the pair, while Grok Code Fast 1 is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Grok Code Fast 1 | Δ | Ornith-1.0-397B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Grok Code Fast 170.8 | Margin→ 3.8 | Ornith-1.0-397B74.6 |
| Agentic | Grok Code Fast 1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Ornith-1.0-397B77.5 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 70.8%B 82.4%Winner: Ornith-1.0-397BΔ 11.6SWE-bench Verified: Grok Code Fast 1 scored 70.8%; Ornith-1.0-397B scored 82.4%. Ornith-1.0-397B wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Grok Code Fast 1 | Ornith-1.0-397B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Grok Code Fast 1$0.2 input / $1.5 output | Ornith-1.0-397B$0 input / $0 output | Ornith-1.0-397B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Grok Code Fast 1172 tok/s | Ornith-1.0-397BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Grok Code Fast 12.81 s | Ornith-1.0-397BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Grok Code Fast 1256K | Ornith-1.0-397B256K | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic3 benchmarks
CodingOrnith-1.0-397B wins6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok Code Fast 1 | Ornith-1.0-397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 70.8% | 82.4% | Ornith-1.0-397B leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 36.2% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 62.2% | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 78.9% | Not comparable |
| NL2RepoSource | — | 48.2% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 77.5% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok Code Fast 1 | Ornith-1.0-397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 21.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 72.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 7.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -36.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 23.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 78.5% | — | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok Code Fast 1 | Ornith-1.0-397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 41.4% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Grok Code Fast 1 or Ornith-1.0-397B?
Grok Code Fast 1 and Ornith-1.0-397B are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.
Which is better for coding, Grok Code Fast 1 or Ornith-1.0-397B?
Ornith-1.0-397B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 74.6 versus 70.8. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
The AI models change fast. We track them for you.
A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.