Coding
Directional only- Ornith-1.5-397B
- 78.0
- Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
- 51.0
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Ornith-1.5-397B vs Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
Updated August 19, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
Ornith-1.5-397B has the higher public score estimate, 68.5 versus 60.01, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
2 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.
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Ornith-1.5-397B
Ornith-1.5-397B has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
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.
16 Ornith-1.5-397B only
2 Shared
7 Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) only
- Shared results
- 2
- Ornith-1.5-397B only
- 16
- Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) only
- 7
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
1 category uses different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
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
Not comparable- Ornith-1.5-397B
- 86.6
- Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
- 65.4
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Ornith-1.5-397B
- Not measured
- Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Ornith-1.5-397B
- 51.1
- Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
- 73.9
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Ornith-1.5-397B
- Not measured
- Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
- 18.4
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Ornith-1.5-397B
- Not measured
- Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Ornith-1.5-397B
- Not measured
- Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Ornith-1.5-397B
- Not measured
- Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Ornith-1.5-397B | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 78.0 | 51.0 | Directional only2 vs 2 rows | Directional only |
| Agentic | 86.6 | 65.4 | Not comparable1 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | 51.1 | 73.9 | Not comparable2 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not measured | 18.4 | Not comparable0 vs 2 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.
SWE-bench Pro
Coding
Ornith-1.5-397B: 65.1%Qwen 3.6 Max (preview): 57.3%Normalized gap 7.8Ornith-1.5-397B source Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) 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-1.5-397B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
Ornith-1.5-397B has no comparable published API token rate. Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) 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
- Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
Ornith-1.5-397B has no comparable published API token rate. Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) 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
- Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
Ornith-1.5-397B has no comparable published API token rate. Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) 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-1.5-397BQwen 3.6 Max (preview)
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Ornith-1.5-397B
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
256K
API model ID
Ornith-1.5-397B
Not sourced
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
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 cardQwen 3.6 Max (preview)
No comparable hosted API rate
Documented inputs
Ornith-1.5-397B
Not sourced
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Ornith-1.5-397B
Not sourced
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
Not sourced
Provider availability
Ornith-1.5-397B
Not sourced
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Ornith-1.5-397B
Reasoning
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
Reasoning
Weight access
Ornith-1.5-397B
Open Weight
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
Proprietary
License
Ornith-1.5-397B
Open Weight
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
Proprietary
Release date
Ornith-1.5-397B
2026-08-18
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
2026-04-20
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- Ornith-1.5-397B has the higher public score estimate, 68.5 versus 60.01, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Ornith-1.5-397B has the larger documented window (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 evidence25 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Ornith-1.5-397B86.1%SourceQwen 3.6 Max (preview)—Not directly comparable
HLE w/ tools
Ornith-1.5-397B56.1%SourceQwen 3.6 Max (preview)—Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Ornith-1.5-397B80%SourceQwen 3.6 Max (preview)—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
Ornith-1.5-397B71.2%SourceQwen 3.6 Max (preview)—Not directly comparable
WideResearch
Ornith-1.5-397B80.8%SourceQwen 3.6 Max (preview)—Not directly comparable
BrowseComp
Ornith-1.5-397B86.6%SourceQwen 3.6 Max (preview)—Not directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Ornith-1.5-397B81.4%SourceQwen 3.6 Max (preview)—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Ornith-1.5-397B—Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)65.4%SourceNot directly comparable
QwenClawBench
Ornith-1.5-397B—Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)59.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Ornith-1.5-397B86.1%SourceQwen 3.6 Max (preview)—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
Ornith-1.5-397B86%SourceQwen 3.6 Max (preview)—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Ornith-1.5-397B65.1%SourceQwen 3.6 Max (preview)57.3%SourceOrnith-1.5-397B leads this result
SWE Multilingual
Ornith-1.5-397B79.6%SourceQwen 3.6 Max (preview)—Not directly comparable
deepSwe
Ornith-1.5-397B56%SourceQwen 3.6 Max (preview)—Not directly comparable
frontierBench
Ornith-1.5-397B13.5%SourceQwen 3.6 Max (preview)—Not directly comparable
NL2Repo
Ornith-1.5-397B59.5%SourceQwen 3.6 Max (preview)42.9%SourceOrnith-1.5-397B leads this result
SciCode
Ornith-1.5-397B—Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)47%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Ornith-1.5-397B—Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)65.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
GPQA
Ornith-1.5-397B92.8%SourceQwen 3.6 Max (preview)—Not directly comparable
GPQA-D
Ornith-1.5-397B92.8%SourceQwen 3.6 Max (preview)—Not directly comparable
HLE
Ornith-1.5-397B44.6%SourceQwen 3.6 Max (preview)—Not directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Ornith-1.5-397B44.6%SourceQwen 3.6 Max (preview)—Not directly comparable
SuperGPQA
Ornith-1.5-397B—Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)73.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Ornith-1.5-397B or Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?
Ornith-1.5-397B has the higher public score estimate, 68.5 versus 60.01, 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-1.5-397B or Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?
The current coding averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Ornith-1.5-397B or Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.
Which costs less, Ornith-1.5-397B or Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?
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 Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?
Ornith-1.5-397B has the larger documented context window: 262K, compared with 256K.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 19, 2026
Watch Ornith-1.5-397B vs Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.