Model comparison
Inkling vs Ornith-1.0-397B
Head-to-head evidence from 4 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Inkling #17; Ornith-1.0-397B unranked
Evidence parity. Inkling and Ornith-1.0-397B share 4 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 12 results are unique to Inkling; 3 to Ornith-1.0-397B.
Updated July 15, 2026- Shared results
- 4
- Inkling only
- 12
- Ornith-1.0-397B only
- 3
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick Ornith-1.0-397B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Inkling only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 1M context window or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 4 shared benchmark results across 2 evidence categories; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Ornith-1.0-397B has the cleaner provisional overall profile here, landing at 72 versus 69. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
Ornith-1.0-397B's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 77.5 against 69.4. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 63.8% to 77.5%.
Inkling is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.87 input / $4.68 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 Inkling 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. Inkling gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for Ornith-1.0-397B.
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 | Inkling | Δ | Ornith-1.0-397B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Inkling69.4 | Margin→ 8.1 | Ornith-1.0-397B77.5 |
| Coding | Inkling68.6 | Margin→ 6.0 | Ornith-1.0-397B74.6 |
| Knowledge | Inkling51.7 | MarginNo overlap | Ornith-1.0-397BNot measured |
| Math | Inkling97.1 | MarginNo overlap | Ornith-1.0-397BNot measured |
| Multimodal | Inkling76.5 | MarginNo overlap | Ornith-1.0-397BNot measured |
| Inst. Following | Inkling79.8 | MarginNo overlap | Ornith-1.0-397BNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 63.8%B 77.5%Winner: Ornith-1.0-397BΔ 13.7Terminal-Bench 2.0: Inkling scored 63.8%; Ornith-1.0-397B scored 77.5%. Ornith-1.0-397B wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 54.3%B 62.2%Winner: Ornith-1.0-397BΔ 7.9SWE-bench Pro: Inkling scored 54.3%; Ornith-1.0-397B scored 62.2%. Ornith-1.0-397B wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 77.6%B 82.4%Winner: Ornith-1.0-397BΔ 4.8SWE-bench Verified: Inkling scored 77.6%; 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 | Inkling | Ornith-1.0-397B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Inkling$1.87 input / $4.68 output | Ornith-1.0-397B$0 input / $0 output | Ornith-1.0-397B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | InklingNot available | Ornith-1.0-397BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | InklingNot available | Ornith-1.0-397BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Inkling1M | Ornith-1.0-397B256K | Inkling lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticOrnith-1.0-397B wins5 benchmarks
CodingOrnith-1.0-397B wins5 benchmarks
Knowledge4 benchmarks
Math1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Inkling | Ornith-1.0-397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME26Source | 97.1% | — | Not comparable |
Multimodal3 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Inkling | Ornith-1.0-397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFBenchSource | 79.8% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Inkling or Ornith-1.0-397B?
Ornith-1.0-397B is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 72 to 69. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 63.8% and 77.5%.
Which is better for coding, Inkling or Ornith-1.0-397B?
Ornith-1.0-397B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 74.6 versus 68.6. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Inkling or Ornith-1.0-397B?
Ornith-1.0-397B has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 77.5 versus 69.4. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
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.