Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Ornith-1.0-35B
67
Step 3.7 Flash
67
Treat this as a split decision. Ornith-1.0-35B makes more sense if you want the cheaper token bill or you need the larger 262K context window; Step 3.7 Flash is the better fit if agentic is the priority.
Agentic
+1.7 difference
Ornith-1.0-35B
Step 3.7 Flash
$0 / $0
$0.2 / $1.15
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
262K
256K
Treat this as a split decision. Ornith-1.0-35B makes more sense if you want the cheaper token bill or you need the larger 262K context window; Step 3.7 Flash is the better fit if agentic is the priority.
Ornith-1.0-35B and Step 3.7 Flash finish on the same provisional overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The provisional headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.
Step 3.7 Flash is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.20 input / $1.15 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Ornith-1.0-35B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Ornith-1.0-35B gives you the larger context window at 262K, compared with 256K for Step 3.7 Flash.
Ornith-1.0-35B and Step 3.7 Flash are tied on the provisional overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.
Step 3.7 Flash has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 65.9 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.