Agentic
Like-for-like- Ornith-1.5-397B
- 86.6
- Ornith-1.5-9B
- 56.4
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Ornith-1.5-397B leads
Ornith-1.5-397B vs Ornith-1.5-9B
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.
Decision reading
Ornith-1.5-397B has the higher public score, 68.5 versus 36.95, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
16 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.
2 Ornith-1.5-397B only
16 Shared
- Shared results
- 16
- Ornith-1.5-397B only
- 2
- Ornith-1.5-9B 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.
Coding
Like-for-like- Ornith-1.5-397B
- 78.0
- Ornith-1.5-9B
- 61.7
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Ornith-1.5-397B leads
Knowledge
Like-for-like- Ornith-1.5-397B
- 51.1
- Ornith-1.5-9B
- 29.1
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Ornith-1.5-397B leads
Reasoning
Not comparable- Ornith-1.5-397B
- Not measured
- Ornith-1.5-9B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Ornith-1.5-397B
- Not measured
- Ornith-1.5-9B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Ornith-1.5-397B
- Not measured
- Ornith-1.5-9B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Ornith-1.5-397B
- Not measured
- Ornith-1.5-9B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Ornith-1.5-397B
- Not measured
- Ornith-1.5-9B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Ornith-1.5-397B | Ornith-1.5-9B | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 86.6 | 56.4 | Like-for-like1 vs 1 rows | Ornith-1.5-397B leads |
| Coding | 78.0 | 61.7 | Like-for-like2 vs 2 rows | Ornith-1.5-397B leads |
| Knowledge | 51.1 | 29.1 | Like-for-like2 vs 2 rows | Ornith-1.5-397B leads |
| Reasoning | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 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.
BrowseComp
Agentic
HLE
Knowledge
SWE-bench Pro
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Coding
GPQA
Knowledge
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-1.5-397B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Ornith-1.5-9B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Ornith-1.5-397B has no comparable published API token rate. Ornith-1.5-9B has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Ornith-1.5-397B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Ornith-1.5-9B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Ornith-1.5-397B has no comparable published API token rate. Ornith-1.5-9B has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Ornith-1.5-397B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
- Ornith-1.5-9B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
Ornith-1.5-397B has no comparable published API token rate. Ornith-1.5-9B 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-1.5-397BOrnith-1.5-9B
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Ornith-1.5-397B
Ornith-1.5-9B
API model ID
Ornith-1.5-397B
Not sourced
Ornith-1.5-9B
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Ornith-1.5-397B
No comparable hosted API rate
Ornith-1.5-397B model cardOrnith-1.5-9B
No comparable hosted API rate
Ornith-1.5-9B model cardDocumented inputs
Ornith-1.5-397B
Not sourced
Ornith-1.5-9B
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Ornith-1.5-397B
Not sourced
Ornith-1.5-9B
Not sourced
Provider availability
Ornith-1.5-397B
Not sourced
Ornith-1.5-9B
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Ornith-1.5-397B
Reasoning
Ornith-1.5-9B
Reasoning
Weight access
Ornith-1.5-397B
Open Weight
Ornith-1.5-9B
Open Weight
License
Ornith-1.5-397B
Open Weight
Ornith-1.5-9B
Open Weight
Release date
Ornith-1.5-397B
2026-08-18
Ornith-1.5-9B
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, 68.5 versus 36.95, and the 90% score intervals do not 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 sourceOrnith-1.5-397B86.1%Ornith-1.5-9B46.2%Ornith-1.5-397B leads this result
HLE w/ tools
Shared sourceOrnith-1.5-397B56.1%Ornith-1.5-9B30.5%Ornith-1.5-397B leads this result
MCP Atlas
Shared sourceOrnith-1.5-397B80%Ornith-1.5-9B54.2%Ornith-1.5-397B leads this result
Toolathlon-Verified
Shared sourceOrnith-1.5-397B71.2%Ornith-1.5-9B41.2%Ornith-1.5-397B leads this result
WideResearch
Shared sourceOrnith-1.5-397B80.8%Ornith-1.5-9B59.5%Ornith-1.5-397B leads this result
BrowseComp
Shared sourceOrnith-1.5-397B86.6%Ornith-1.5-9B56.4%Ornith-1.5-397B leads this result
Claw-Eval
Shared sourceOrnith-1.5-397B81.4%Ornith-1.5-9B66.5%Ornith-1.5-397B leads this result
Coding
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Shared sourceOrnith-1.5-397B86.1%Ornith-1.5-9B46.2%Ornith-1.5-397B leads this result
SWE-bench Verified
Shared sourceOrnith-1.5-397B86%Ornith-1.5-9B70.6%Ornith-1.5-397B leads this result
SWE-bench Pro
Shared sourceOrnith-1.5-397B65.1%Ornith-1.5-9B47.5%Ornith-1.5-397B leads this result
SWE Multilingual
Shared sourceOrnith-1.5-397B79.6%Ornith-1.5-9B54.4%Ornith-1.5-397B leads this result
deepSwe
Ornith-1.5-397B56%SourceOrnith-1.5-9B—Not directly comparable
frontierBench
Ornith-1.5-397B13.5%SourceOrnith-1.5-9B—Not directly comparable
NL2Repo
Shared sourceOrnith-1.5-397B59.5%Ornith-1.5-9B32.4%Ornith-1.5-397B leads this result
Knowledge
GPQA
Shared sourceOrnith-1.5-397B92.8%Ornith-1.5-9B86.4%Ornith-1.5-397B leads this result
GPQA-D
Shared sourceOrnith-1.5-397B92.8%Ornith-1.5-9B86.4%Ornith-1.5-397B leads this result
- Ornith-1.5-397B44.6%Ornith-1.5-9B20.2%
Ornith-1.5-397B leads this result
HLE w/o tools
Shared sourceOrnith-1.5-397B44.6%Ornith-1.5-9B20.2%Ornith-1.5-397B leads this result
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Ornith-1.5-397B or Ornith-1.5-9B?
Ornith-1.5-397B has the higher public score, 68.5 versus 36.95, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap. That is the clearest overall quality signal in the current public data.
Which is better for coding, Ornith-1.5-397B or Ornith-1.5-9B?
Ornith-1.5-397B leads the like-for-like coding comparison across 2 shared weighted benchmark rows.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Ornith-1.5-397B or Ornith-1.5-9B?
Ornith-1.5-397B leads the like-for-like agentic tasks comparison across 1 shared weighted benchmark row.
Which costs less, Ornith-1.5-397B or Ornith-1.5-9B?
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-1.5-397B or Ornith-1.5-9B?
Both models list the same context window, 262K.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 19, 2026
Watch Ornith-1.5-397B vs Ornith-1.5-9B
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.