Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Laguna XS.2
63
Ornith-1.0-35B
67
Pick Ornith-1.0-35B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Laguna XS.2 only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.
Agentic
+34.1 difference
Laguna XS.2
Ornith-1.0-35B
$0.1 / $0.2
$0 / $0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
256K
262K
Pick Ornith-1.0-35B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Laguna XS.2 only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.
Ornith-1.0-35B is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 67 to 63. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Ornith-1.0-35B's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 64.2 against 30.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 30.1% to 64.2%.
Laguna XS.2 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.10 input / $0.20 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Ornith-1.0-35B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Ornith-1.0-35B gives you the larger context window at 262K, compared with 256K for Laguna XS.2.
Ornith-1.0-35B is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 67 to 63. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 30.1% and 64.2%.
Ornith-1.0-35B has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 64.2 versus 30.1. 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.