Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
LongCat-2.0
80
Ornith-1.0-35B
67
Pick LongCat-2.0 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Ornith-1.0-35B only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Agentic
+6.6 difference
LongCat-2.0
Ornith-1.0-35B
$0.75 / $2.95
$0 / $0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1M
262K
Pick LongCat-2.0 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Ornith-1.0-35B only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
LongCat-2.0 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 80 to 67. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
LongCat-2.0's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 70.8 against 64.2. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 70.8% to 64.2%.
LongCat-2.0 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.75 input / $2.95 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. LongCat-2.0 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 262K for Ornith-1.0-35B.
LongCat-2.0 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 80 to 67. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 70.8% and 64.2%.
LongCat-2.0 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 70.8 versus 64.2. 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.