Model A

DeepReinforce AI

—

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

Ornith-1.0-397B vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

Updated August 13, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Model B

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

Alibaba

50.5/100

Estimated · Public rank #115

90% interval 39.0–62.0

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.

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
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented

Show secondary and unsupported calls

Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
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

34 Qwen3.6-35B-A3B only

Shared results: 7
Ornith-1.0-397B only: 0
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B only: 34
Like-for-like categories: 1 / 8

1 category uses different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

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.

Agentic

Like-for-like

Ornith-1.0-397B: 77.5
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B: 51.5
Weighted basis: 1 vs 1 rows
Reading: Ornith-1.0-397B leads

Coding

Directional only

Ornith-1.0-397B: 74.6
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B: 73.8
Weighted basis: 2 vs 3 rows
Reading: Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable

Ornith-1.0-397B: Not measured
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B: Not measured
Weighted basis: 0 vs 0 rows
Reading: Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable

Ornith-1.0-397B: Not measured
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B: 51.4
Weighted basis: 0 vs 4 rows
Reading: Not comparable

Math

Not comparable

Ornith-1.0-397B: Not measured
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B: 88.2
Weighted basis: 0 vs 2 rows
Reading: Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable

Ornith-1.0-397B: Not measured
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B: Not measured
Weighted basis: 0 vs 0 rows
Reading: Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable

Ornith-1.0-397B: Not measured
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B: 76.3
Weighted basis: 0 vs 2 rows
Reading: Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable

Ornith-1.0-397B: Not measured
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B: Not measured
Weighted basis: 0 vs 0 rows
Reading: Not comparable

Category averages with the server-provided evidence basis for Ornith-1.0-397B and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
Category	Ornith-1.0-397B	Qwen3.6-35B-A3B	Weighted basis	Reading
Agentic	77.5	51.5	Like-for-like1 vs 1 rows	Ornith-1.0-397B leads
Coding	74.6	73.8	Directional only2 vs 3 rows	Directional only
Reasoning	Not measured	Not measured	Not comparable0 vs 0 rows	Not comparable
Knowledge	Not measured	51.4	Not comparable0 vs 4 rows	Not comparable
Math	Not measured	88.2	Not comparable0 vs 2 rows	Not comparable
Multilingual	Not measured	Not measured	Not comparable0 vs 0 rows	Not comparable
Multimodal	Not measured	76.3	Not comparable0 vs 2 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
Ornith-1.0-397B: 77.5%Qwen3.6-35B-A3B: 51.5%Normalized gap 26.0Ornith-1.0-397B source Qwen3.6-35B-A3B source
SWE-bench Pro
Coding
Ornith-1.0-397B: 62.2%Qwen3.6-35B-A3B: 49.5%Normalized gap 12.7Ornith-1.0-397B source Qwen3.6-35B-A3B source
SWE-bench Verified
Coding
Ornith-1.0-397B: 82.4%Qwen3.6-35B-A3B: 73.4%Normalized gap 9.0Ornith-1.0-397B source Qwen3.6-35B-A3B source

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-1.0-397B: Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies; Fits in one request
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B: API rate not published; Fits in one request

Ornith-1.0-397B has no comparable published API token rate. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Ornith-1.0-397B: Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies; Fits in one request
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B: API rate not published; Fits in one request

Ornith-1.0-397B has no comparable published API token rate. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

Ornith-1.0-397B: Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies; Fits in one request; Cached-input rate unavailable
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B: API rate not published; Fits in one request; Cached-input rate unavailable

Ornith-1.0-397B has no comparable published API token rate. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B 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-1.0-397BQwen3.6-35B-A3B

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

Ornith-1.0-397B

256K

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

262K

API model ID

Ornith-1.0-397B

Not sourced

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

Not sourced

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

Ornith-1.0-397B

No comparable hosted API rate

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

No comparable hosted API rate

Documented inputs

Ornith-1.0-397B

Not sourced

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Ornith-1.0-397B

Not sourced

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

Not sourced

Provider availability

Ornith-1.0-397B

Not sourced

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Ornith-1.0-397B

Reasoning

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

Reasoning

Weight access

Ornith-1.0-397B

Open Weight

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

Open Weight

License

Ornith-1.0-397B

Open Weight

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

Open Weight

Release date

Ornith-1.0-397B

2026-06-01

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

2026-04-15

If you already use one of these models

Deployment change: The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
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: Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has the larger documented window (262K).

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 evidence41 rows

Agentic

Terminal-Bench 2.0
Ornith-1.0-397B77.5%
Source
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B51.5%
Source
Ornith-1.0-397B leads this result
Claw-Eval
Ornith-1.0-397B77.1%
Source
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B68.7%
Source
Ornith-1.0-397B leads this result
QwenClawBench
Ornith-1.0-397B—
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B52.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
QwenWebBench
Ornith-1.0-397B—
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B1397
Source
Not directly comparable
τ³-bench results
Ornith-1.0-397B—
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B67.2%
Source
Not directly comparable
VITA-Bench
Ornith-1.0-397B—
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B35.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
DeepPlanning
Ornith-1.0-397B—
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B25.9%
Source
Not directly comparable
Toolathlon
Ornith-1.0-397B—
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B26.9%
Source
Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Ornith-1.0-397B—
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B62.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
WideResearch
Ornith-1.0-397B—
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B60.1%
Source
Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Ornith-1.0-397B—
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B42.65%
Source
Not directly comparable

Coding

SWE-bench Verified
Ornith-1.0-397B82.4%
Source
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B73.4%
Source
Ornith-1.0-397B leads this result
SWE-bench Pro
Ornith-1.0-397B62.2%
Source
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B49.5%
Source
Ornith-1.0-397B leads this result
SWE Multilingual
Ornith-1.0-397B78.9%
Source
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B67.2%
Source
Ornith-1.0-397B leads this result
NL2Repo
Ornith-1.0-397B48.2%
Source
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B29.4%
Source
Ornith-1.0-397B leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Ornith-1.0-397B77.5%
Source
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B51.5%
Source
Ornith-1.0-397B leads this result
LiveCodeBench
Ornith-1.0-397B—
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B80.4%
Source
Not directly comparable

Knowledge

MMLU-Pro
Ornith-1.0-397B—
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B85.2%
Source
Not directly comparable
SuperGPQA
Ornith-1.0-397B—
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B64.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
C-Eval
Ornith-1.0-397B—
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B90%
Source
Not directly comparable
GPQA
Ornith-1.0-397B—
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B86%
Source
Not directly comparable
HLE
Ornith-1.0-397B—
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B21.4%
Source
Not directly comparable

Math

HMMT Feb 2025
Ornith-1.0-397B—
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B90.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
HMMT Nov 2025
Ornith-1.0-397B—
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B89.1%
Source
Not directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2026
Ornith-1.0-397B—
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B83.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMAnswerBench
Ornith-1.0-397B—
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B78.9%
Source
Not directly comparable
AIME26
Ornith-1.0-397B—
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B92.7%
Source
Not directly comparable

Multimodal

MMMU
Ornith-1.0-397B—
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B81.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMMU-Pro
Ornith-1.0-397B—
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B75.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
RealWorldQA
Ornith-1.0-397B—
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B85.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5
Ornith-1.0-397B—
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B89.9%
Source
Not directly comparable
CharXiv
Ornith-1.0-397B—
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B78%
Source
Not directly comparable
SimpleVQA
Ornith-1.0-397B—
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B58.9%
Source
Not directly comparable
CC-OCR
Ornith-1.0-397B—
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B81.9%
Source
Not directly comparable
AI2D_TEST
Ornith-1.0-397B—
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B92.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
RefCOCO (avg)
Ornith-1.0-397B—
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B92.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
ODINW13
Ornith-1.0-397B—
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B50.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)
Ornith-1.0-397B—
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B86.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
Video-MME (w/o subtitle)
Ornith-1.0-397B—
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B82.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
VideoMMMU
Ornith-1.0-397B—
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B83.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
MLVU (M-Avg)
Ornith-1.0-397B—
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B86.2%
Source
Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Ornith-1.0-397B or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?

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-1.0-397B or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?

The current coding averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Ornith-1.0-397B or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?

Ornith-1.0-397B leads the like-for-like agentic tasks comparison across 1 shared weighted benchmark row.

Which costs less, Ornith-1.0-397B or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?

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-1.0-397B or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has the larger documented context window: 262K, compared with 256K.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated August 13, 2026

Watch Ornith-1.0-397B vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.

Ornith-1.0-397B vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

Which one for your work

Agentic work

Long documents

Coding work

Chat turn cost

Cache-heavy agent loop cost

Repository review cost

What is actually comparable

Category results, on a stated basis

Agentic

Coding

Reasoning

Knowledge

Math

Multilingual

Multimodal

Instruction following

Shape of the matched evidence

What each workload costs

Chat turn

Repository review

Cache-heavy agent loop

Specification differences

Context window

API model ID

Cached-input rate

Documented inputs

Documented outputs

Provider availability

Reasoning profile

Weight access

License

Release date

Benchmark evidence

Agentic

Coding

Knowledge

Math

Multimodal

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Ornith-1.0-397B or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?

Which is better for coding, Ornith-1.0-397B or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?

Which is better for agentic tasks, Ornith-1.0-397B or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?

Which costs less, Ornith-1.0-397B or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?

Which has the larger context window, Ornith-1.0-397B or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?

Related comparisons

Watch Ornith-1.0-397B vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B