Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Ornith-1.0-35B
67
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
78
Pick Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Ornith-1.0-35B only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 262K context window.
Agentic
+1.2 difference
Ornith-1.0-35B
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
$0 / $0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
262K
256K
Pick Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Ornith-1.0-35B only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 262K context window.
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 78 to 67. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)'s sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 65.4 against 64.2. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 64.2% to 65.4%.
Ornith-1.0-35B gives you the larger context window at 262K, compared with 256K for Qwen 3.6 Max (preview).
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 78 to 67. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 64.2% and 65.4%.
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 65.4 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.