Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Ornith-1.0-397B
96
Step 3.7 Flash
67
Pick Ornith-1.0-397B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Step 3.7 Flash only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.
Agentic
+11.6 difference
Coding
+26.1 difference
Ornith-1.0-397B
Step 3.7 Flash
$0 / $0
$0.2 / $1.15
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
262K
256K
Pick Ornith-1.0-397B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Step 3.7 Flash only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.
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 coding, where it averages 82.4 against 56.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 77.5% to 59.5%.
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-1.0-397B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Ornith-1.0-397B gives you the larger context window at 262K, compared with 256K for Step 3.7 Flash.
Ornith-1.0-397B is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 96 to 67. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 77.5% and 59.5%.
Ornith-1.0-397B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 82.4 versus 56.3. 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 65.9. 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.