Agentic
Like-for-like- Ornith-1.0-35B
- 64.2
- Ornith-1.0-397B
- 77.5
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Ornith-1.0-397B leads
Ornith-1.0-35B vs Ornith-1.0-397B
Updated August 13, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload. This is a same-family comparison, so migration details appear when the source data supports them.
Decision reading
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
7 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Ornith-1.0-397B
Ornith-1.0-397B leads on the same 2 weighted benchmark rows.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Ornith-1.0-397B
Ornith-1.0-397B leads on the same 1 weighted benchmark row.
Confidence: limited
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
Confidence: documented
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
7 Shared
- Shared results
- 7
- Ornith-1.0-35B only
- 0
- Ornith-1.0-397B only
- 0
- Like-for-like categories
- 2 / 8
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.
Coding
Like-for-like- Ornith-1.0-35B
- 65.9
- Ornith-1.0-397B
- 74.6
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Ornith-1.0-397B leads
Reasoning
Not comparable- Ornith-1.0-35B
- Not measured
- Ornith-1.0-397B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Ornith-1.0-35B
- Not measured
- Ornith-1.0-397B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Ornith-1.0-35B
- Not measured
- Ornith-1.0-397B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Ornith-1.0-35B
- Not measured
- Ornith-1.0-397B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Ornith-1.0-35B
- Not measured
- Ornith-1.0-397B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Ornith-1.0-35B
- Not measured
- Ornith-1.0-397B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Ornith-1.0-35B | Ornith-1.0-397B | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 64.2 | 77.5 | Like-for-like1 vs 1 rows | Ornith-1.0-397B leads |
| Coding | 65.9 | 74.6 | Like-for-like2 vs 2 rows | Ornith-1.0-397B leads |
| Reasoning | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Agentic
SWE-bench Pro
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Coding
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Ornith-1.0-35B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Ornith-1.0-397B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Ornith-1.0-35B has no comparable published API token rate. Ornith-1.0-397B has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Ornith-1.0-35B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Ornith-1.0-397B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Ornith-1.0-35B has no comparable published API token rate. Ornith-1.0-397B has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Ornith-1.0-35B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
- Ornith-1.0-397B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
Ornith-1.0-35B has no comparable published API token rate. Ornith-1.0-397B has no comparable published API token rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationOrnith-1.0-35BOrnith-1.0-397B
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Ornith-1.0-35B
256K
Ornith-1.0-397B
256K
API model ID
Ornith-1.0-35B
Not sourced
Ornith-1.0-397B
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Ornith-1.0-35B
No comparable hosted API rate
Ornith-1.0-397B
No comparable hosted API rate
Documented inputs
Ornith-1.0-35B
Not sourced
Ornith-1.0-397B
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Ornith-1.0-35B
Not sourced
Ornith-1.0-397B
Not sourced
Provider availability
Ornith-1.0-35B
Not sourced
Ornith-1.0-397B
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Ornith-1.0-35B
Reasoning
Ornith-1.0-397B
Reasoning
Weight access
Ornith-1.0-35B
Open Weight
Ornith-1.0-397B
Open Weight
License
Ornith-1.0-35B
Open Weight
Ornith-1.0-397B
Open Weight
Release date
Ornith-1.0-35B
2026-06-01
Ornith-1.0-397B
2026-06-01
If you are choosing between sibling variants
- Deployment change
- Both entries list DeepReinforce AI as the provider. Confirm endpoint, model ID, limits, and feature support before switching.
- Quality signal
- At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Both models list 256K.
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence7 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Shared sourceOrnith-1.0-35B64.2%Ornith-1.0-397B77.5%Ornith-1.0-397B leads this result
Claw-Eval
Shared sourceOrnith-1.0-35B69.8%Ornith-1.0-397B77.1%Ornith-1.0-397B leads this result
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Shared sourceOrnith-1.0-35B75.6%Ornith-1.0-397B82.4%Ornith-1.0-397B leads this result
SWE-bench Pro
Shared sourceOrnith-1.0-35B50.4%Ornith-1.0-397B62.2%Ornith-1.0-397B leads this result
SWE Multilingual
Shared sourceOrnith-1.0-35B69.3%Ornith-1.0-397B78.9%Ornith-1.0-397B leads this result
NL2Repo
Shared sourceOrnith-1.0-35B34.6%Ornith-1.0-397B48.2%Ornith-1.0-397B leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Shared sourceOrnith-1.0-35B64.2%Ornith-1.0-397B77.5%Ornith-1.0-397B leads this result
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Ornith-1.0-35B or Ornith-1.0-397B?
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, Ornith-1.0-35B or Ornith-1.0-397B?
Ornith-1.0-397B leads the like-for-like coding comparison across 2 shared weighted benchmark rows.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Ornith-1.0-35B or Ornith-1.0-397B?
Ornith-1.0-397B leads the like-for-like agentic tasks comparison across 1 shared weighted benchmark row.
Which costs less, Ornith-1.0-35B or Ornith-1.0-397B?
Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.
Which has the larger context window, Ornith-1.0-35B or Ornith-1.0-397B?
Both models list the same context window, 256K.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 13, 2026
Watch Ornith-1.0-35B vs Ornith-1.0-397B
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.