Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Ornith-1.0-397B
96
Qwen3.7 Max
90
Verified leaderboard positions: Ornith-1.0-397B unranked · Qwen3.7 Max #3
Pick Ornith-1.0-397B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.7 Max only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 1M context window.
Agentic
+7.8 difference
Coding
+8.8 difference
Ornith-1.0-397B
Qwen3.7 Max
$0 / $0
$null / $null
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
262K
1M
Pick Ornith-1.0-397B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.7 Max only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 1M context window.
Ornith-1.0-397B is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 96 to 90. 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 coding, where it averages 82.4 against 73.6. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 77.5% to 69.7%.
Qwen3.7 Max gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 262K for Ornith-1.0-397B.
Ornith-1.0-397B is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 96 to 90. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 77.5% and 69.7%.
Ornith-1.0-397B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 82.4 versus 73.6. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Ornith-1.0-397B has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 77.5 versus 69.7. Inside this category, Claw-Eval 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.