Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Sibling matchup inside the Ornith 1.0 family.
Ornith-1.0-35B
67
Ornith-1.0-397B
96
Ornith-1.0-35B makes more sense if you want this variant’s specific profile, while Ornith-1.0-397B is the cleaner fit if agentic is the priority.
Agentic
+13.3 difference
Ornith-1.0-35B
Ornith-1.0-397B
$0 / $0
$0 / $0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
262K
262K
Ornith-1.0-35B makes more sense if you want this variant’s specific profile, while Ornith-1.0-397B is the cleaner fit if agentic is the priority.
Ornith-1.0-35B and Ornith-1.0-397B sit in the same Ornith 1.0 family. This page is less about two unrelated model lineages and more about how the siblings trade off on benchmark shape, token costs, and practical limits like context window.
Ornith-1.0-397B is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 96 to 67. 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 agentic, where it averages 77.5 against 64.2. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 64.2% to 77.5%.
Ornith-1.0-35B and Ornith-1.0-397B are sibling variants in the Ornith 1.0 family, so the right pick depends on whether you value the better benchmark line, cheaper tokens, or the larger context window. Ornith-1.0-397B is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard 96 to 67.
Ornith-1.0-397B has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 77.5 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.