Skip to main content
Radar

Five or fewer confirmed AI changes, with original sources, on mornings when something changed.A free source-linked morning brief.

Start free brief
BenchLM
Model A
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B

Ornith AI

49.3/100

Estimated · Public rank #136

90% interval 39.4–59.1

Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B vs Ornith-1.5-397B

Updated August 19, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload. This is a same-family comparison, so migration details appear when the source data supports them.

Model B
Ornith-1.5-397B

Ornith AI

68.5/100

Estimated · Public rank #21

90% interval 58.6–78.4

Decision reading

Ornith-1.5-397B has the higher public score estimate, 68.5 versus 49.27, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.

18 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.

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Ornith-1.5-397B

    Ornith-1.5-397B leads on the same 2 weighted benchmark rows.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Ornith-1.5-397B

    Ornith-1.5-397B leads on the same 1 weighted benchmark row.

    Confidence: limited

Show secondary and unsupported calls

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    No clear pick

    The documented context windows are equal.

    Confidence: documented

  • 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.

Shared results
18
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B only
0
Ornith-1.5-397B only
0
Like-for-like categories
3 / 8

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-1.5-35B-A3B
67.6
Ornith-1.5-397B
86.6
Weighted basis
1 vs 1 rows
Reading
Ornith-1.5-397B leads

Coding

Like-for-like
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
71.5
Ornith-1.5-397B
78.0
Weighted basis
2 vs 2 rows
Reading
Ornith-1.5-397B leads

Knowledge

Like-for-like
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
34.2
Ornith-1.5-397B
51.1
Weighted basis
2 vs 2 rows
Reading
Ornith-1.5-397B leads

Reasoning

Not comparable
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
Not measured
Ornith-1.5-397B
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
Not measured
Ornith-1.5-397B
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
Not measured
Ornith-1.5-397B
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
Not measured
Ornith-1.5-397B
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
Not measured
Ornith-1.5-397B
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
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.

  • BrowseComp

    Agentic

    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B: 67.6%Ornith-1.5-397B: 86.6%Normalized gap 19.0Shared source

  • HLE

    Knowledge

    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B: 25.6%Ornith-1.5-397B: 44.6%Normalized gap 19.0Shared source

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Coding

    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B: 79%Ornith-1.5-397B: 86%Normalized gap 7.0Shared source

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Coding

    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B: 59.6%Ornith-1.5-397B: 65.1%Normalized gap 5.5Shared source

  • GPQA

    Knowledge

    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B: 89.2%Ornith-1.5-397B: 92.8%Normalized gap 3.6Shared 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-1.5-35B-A3B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request
Ornith-1.5-397B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B has no comparable published API token rate. Ornith-1.5-397B has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request
Ornith-1.5-397B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B has no comparable published API token rate. Ornith-1.5-397B has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

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

Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable
Ornith-1.5-397B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B has no comparable published API token rate. Ornith-1.5-397B 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.

API model ID

Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B

Not sourced

Ornith-1.5-397B

Not sourced

Documented inputs

Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B

Not sourced

Ornith-1.5-397B

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B

Not sourced

Ornith-1.5-397B

Not sourced

Provider availability

Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B

Not sourced

Ornith-1.5-397B

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B

Reasoning

Ornith-1.5-397B

Reasoning

Weight access

Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B

Open Weight

Ornith-1.5-397B

Open Weight

License

Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B

Open Weight

Ornith-1.5-397B

Open Weight

Release date

Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B

2026-08-18

Ornith-1.5-397B

2026-08-18

If you are choosing between sibling variants
Deployment change
Both entries list Ornith AI as the provider. Confirm endpoint, model ID, limits, and feature support before switching.
Quality signal
Ornith-1.5-397B has the higher public score estimate, 68.5 versus 49.27, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
Both models list 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 evidence18 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Shared source
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B67.8%
    Ornith-1.5-397B86.1%

    Ornith-1.5-397B leads this result

  • HLE w/ tools

    Shared source
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B33.4%
    Ornith-1.5-397B56.1%

    Ornith-1.5-397B leads this result

  • MCP Atlas

    Shared source
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B70.2%
    Ornith-1.5-397B80%

    Ornith-1.5-397B leads this result

  • Toolathlon-Verified

    Shared source
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B48.7%
    Ornith-1.5-397B71.2%

    Ornith-1.5-397B leads this result

  • WideResearch

    Shared source
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B67.8%
    Ornith-1.5-397B80.8%

    Ornith-1.5-397B leads this result

  • BrowseComp

    Shared source
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B67.6%
    Ornith-1.5-397B86.6%

    Ornith-1.5-397B leads this result

  • Claw-Eval

    Shared source
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B72.5%
    Ornith-1.5-397B81.4%

    Ornith-1.5-397B leads this result

Coding

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Shared source
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B67.8%
    Ornith-1.5-397B86.1%

    Ornith-1.5-397B leads this result

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Shared source
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B79%
    Ornith-1.5-397B86%

    Ornith-1.5-397B leads this result

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Shared source
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B59.6%
    Ornith-1.5-397B65.1%

    Ornith-1.5-397B leads this result

  • SWE Multilingual

    Shared source
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B71.4%
    Ornith-1.5-397B79.6%

    Ornith-1.5-397B leads this result

  • deepSwe

    Shared source
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B22%
    Ornith-1.5-397B56%

    Ornith-1.5-397B leads this result

  • frontierBench

    Shared source
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B5.1%
    Ornith-1.5-397B13.5%

    Ornith-1.5-397B leads this result

  • NL2Repo

    Shared source
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B46.2%
    Ornith-1.5-397B59.5%

    Ornith-1.5-397B leads this result

Knowledge

  • GPQA

    Shared source
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B89.2%
    Ornith-1.5-397B92.8%

    Ornith-1.5-397B leads this result

  • GPQA-D

    Shared source
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B89.2%
    Ornith-1.5-397B92.8%

    Ornith-1.5-397B leads this result

  • HLE

    Shared source
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B25.6%
    Ornith-1.5-397B44.6%

    Ornith-1.5-397B leads this result

  • HLE w/o tools

    Shared source
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B25.6%
    Ornith-1.5-397B44.6%

    Ornith-1.5-397B leads this result

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B or Ornith-1.5-397B?

Ornith-1.5-397B has the higher public score estimate, 68.5 versus 49.27, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.

Which is better for coding, Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B or Ornith-1.5-397B?

Ornith-1.5-397B leads the like-for-like coding comparison across 2 shared weighted benchmark rows.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B or Ornith-1.5-397B?

Ornith-1.5-397B leads the like-for-like agentic tasks comparison across 1 shared weighted benchmark row.

Which costs less, Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B or Ornith-1.5-397B?

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-1.5-35B-A3B or Ornith-1.5-397B?

Both models list the same context window, 262K.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated August 19, 2026

Watch Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B vs Ornith-1.5-397B

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

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.