Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
MiMo-V2.5
70
Ornith-1.0-397B
96
Pick Ornith-1.0-397B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiMo-V2.5 only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 1M context window.
Agentic
+11.7 difference
Coding
+26.3 difference
MiMo-V2.5
Ornith-1.0-397B
$null / $null
$0 / $0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1M
262K
Pick Ornith-1.0-397B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiMo-V2.5 only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 1M context window.
Ornith-1.0-397B is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 96 to 70. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Ornith-1.0-397B's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 82.4 against 56.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 65.8% to 77.5%.
MiMo-V2.5 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 262K for Ornith-1.0-397B.
Ornith-1.0-397B is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 96 to 70. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 65.8% and 77.5%.
Ornith-1.0-397B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 82.4 versus 56.1. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Ornith-1.0-397B has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 77.5 versus 65.8. Inside this category, Claw-Eval 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.