Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
o3-mini
55
Ornith-1.0-397B
96
Pick Ornith-1.0-397B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. o3-mini only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.
Coding
+33.1 difference
o3-mini
Ornith-1.0-397B
$1.1 / $4.4
$0 / $0
160 t/s
N/A
7.12s
N/A
200K
262K
Pick Ornith-1.0-397B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. o3-mini only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.
Ornith-1.0-397B is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 96 to 55. 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 49.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Verified, 49.3% to 82.4%.
o3-mini is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.10 input / $4.40 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 gives you the larger context window at 262K, compared with 200K for o3-mini.
Ornith-1.0-397B is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 96 to 55. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 49.3% and 82.4%.
Ornith-1.0-397B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 82.4 versus 49.3. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified 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.