Model comparison
Ornith-1.0-9B vs SWE-1.7
Head-to-head evidence from 3 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Evidence parity. Ornith-1.0-9B and SWE-1.7 share 3 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 4 results are unique to Ornith-1.0-9B; 1 to SWE-1.7.
Updated July 15, 2026- Shared results
- 3
- Ornith-1.0-9B only
- 4
- SWE-1.7 only
- 1
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick SWE-1.7 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Ornith-1.0-9B only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 3 shared benchmark results across 2 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
SWE-1.7 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 74 to 49. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
SWE-1.7's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 81.5 against 43.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 43.1% to 81.5%.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Ornith-1.0-9B | Δ | SWE-1.7 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Ornith-1.0-9B43.1 | Margin→ 38.4 | SWE-1.781.5 |
| Coding | Ornith-1.0-9B59.2 | MarginNo overlap | SWE-1.7Not measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 43.1%B 81.5%Winner: SWE-1.7Δ 38.4Terminal-Bench 2.0: Ornith-1.0-9B scored 43.1%; SWE-1.7 scored 81.5%. SWE-1.7 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Ornith-1.0-9B | SWE-1.7 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Ornith-1.0-9B$0 input / $0 output | SWE-1.7Not available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Ornith-1.0-9BNot available | SWE-1.7Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Ornith-1.0-9BNot available | SWE-1.7Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Ornith-1.0-9B256K | SWE-1.7256K | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticSWE-1.7 wins2 benchmarks
Coding6 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Ornith-1.0-9B or SWE-1.7?
SWE-1.7 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 74 to 49. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 43.1% and 81.5%.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Ornith-1.0-9B or SWE-1.7?
SWE-1.7 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 81.5 versus 43.1. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
The AI models change fast. We track them for you.
A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.