Skip to main content
Radar

Every change to the models you run, with its source and its date. Releases, price changes, retirements, API changes, and incidents.Every change to the models you run, with its source.

Follow model changes

Ornith-1.5-397B vs Ternary Bonsai 2 27B

Decision reading

Ornith-1.5-397B has the higher public score estimate, 65.32 versus 50.78, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.

5 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Model A
Ornith-1.5-397B

Ornith AI

65.32/100

Estimated · Public rank #37

90% interval 55.575.2

Prism ML logo
Model B
Ternary Bonsai 2 27B

Prism ML

50.78/100

Estimated · Public rank #122

90% interval 40.960.6

Updated September 18, 2026. Rank says Ornith-1.5-397B is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Share or export

Share on XLinkedInSocial cardCSVJSON

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.

No workload recommendation clears the current evidence threshold.

Use the matched evidence, workload costs, and sourced specifications below instead of treating a point score as a universal answer.

Show secondary and unsupported calls
  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    Ornith-1.5-397B and Ternary Bonsai 2 27B are scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

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

    Not enough matched evidence

    Ornith-1.5-397B and Ternary Bonsai 2 27B are scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.

    Confidence: limited

  • 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
5
Ornith-1.5-397B only
13
Ternary Bonsai 2 27B only
16
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

3 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.

Agentic

Directional only
Ornith-1.5-397B
60.9
Estimated · #17/154
Ternary Bonsai 2 27B
49.9
Estimated · #59/154
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 7 vs 3 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Coding

Directional only
Ornith-1.5-397B
59.0
Estimated · #25/154
Ternary Bonsai 2 27B
49.9
Estimated · #64/154
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 7 vs 4 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Knowledge

Directional only
Ornith-1.5-397B
60.5
Estimated · #35/184
Ternary Bonsai 2 27B
50.6
Estimated · #78/184
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 4 vs 3 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable
Ornith-1.5-397B
Not ranked
Ternary Bonsai 2 27B
73.9
Unranked · 1 rankable row
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Ornith-1.5-397B
Not ranked
Ternary Bonsai 2 27B
76.8
Unranked · 4 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Ornith-1.5-397B
Not ranked
Ternary Bonsai 2 27B
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Ornith-1.5-397B
Not ranked
Ternary Bonsai 2 27B
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Ornith-1.5-397B
Not ranked
Ternary Bonsai 2 27B
71.0
#64/124
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

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.

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
Ternary Bonsai 2 27B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

Ornith-1.5-397B has no comparable published API token rate. Ternary Bonsai 2 27B 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
Ternary Bonsai 2 27B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

Ornith-1.5-397B has no comparable published API token rate. Ternary Bonsai 2 27B 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
Ternary Bonsai 2 27B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

Ornith-1.5-397B has no comparable published API token rate. Ternary Bonsai 2 27B 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.

Documented inputs

Ornith-1.5-397B

Not sourced

Ternary Bonsai 2 27B

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Ornith-1.5-397B

Not sourced

Ternary Bonsai 2 27B

Not sourced

Provider availability

Ornith-1.5-397B

Not sourced

Ternary Bonsai 2 27B

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Ornith-1.5-397B

Reasoning

Ternary Bonsai 2 27B

Reasoning

Weight access

Ornith-1.5-397B

Open Weight

Ternary Bonsai 2 27B

Open Weight

License

Ornith-1.5-397B

Open Weight

Ternary Bonsai 2 27B

Open Weight

Release date

Ornith-1.5-397B

2026-08-18

Ternary Bonsai 2 27B

2026-09-17

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, 65.32 versus 50.78, 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 evidence34 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Ornith-1.5-397B86.1%
    Source
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B52.8%
    Source

    Ornith-1.5-397B leads this result

  • HLE w/ tools

    Ornith-1.5-397B56.1%
    Source
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    Ornith-1.5-397B80%
    Source
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon-Verified

    Ornith-1.5-397B71.2%
    Source
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B

    Not directly comparable

  • WideResearch

    Ornith-1.5-397B80.8%
    Source
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B

    Not directly comparable

  • BrowseComp

    Ornith-1.5-397B86.6%
    Source
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B

    Not directly comparable

  • Claw-Eval

    Ornith-1.5-397B81.4%
    Source
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B

    Not directly comparable

  • τ²-bench results

    Ornith-1.5-397B
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B80.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BFCL v3

    Ornith-1.5-397B
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B74.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Ornith-1.5-397B86.1%
    Source
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B52.8%
    Source

    Ornith-1.5-397B leads this result

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Ornith-1.5-397B86%
    Source
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B60.8%
    Source

    Ornith-1.5-397B leads this result

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Ornith-1.5-397B65.1%
    Source
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE Multilingual

    Ornith-1.5-397B79.6%
    Source
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSWE

    Ornith-1.5-397B56.0%
    Source
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B

    Not directly comparable

  • frontierBench

    Ornith-1.5-397B13.5%
    Source
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B

    Not directly comparable

  • NL2Repo

    Ornith-1.5-397B59.5%
    Source
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench v6

    Ornith-1.5-397B
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B90.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BigCodeBench

    Ornith-1.5-397B
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B58.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA

    Ornith-1.5-397B92.8%
    Source
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B85.8%
    Source

    Ornith-1.5-397B leads this result

  • GPQA-D

    Ornith-1.5-397B92.8%
    Source
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B85.8%
    Source

    Ornith-1.5-397B leads this result

  • HLE

    Ornith-1.5-397B44.6%
    Source
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/o tools

    Ornith-1.5-397B44.6%
    Source
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Redux

    Ornith-1.5-397B
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B89.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • GSM8K

    Ornith-1.5-397B
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B96.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MATH-500

    Ornith-1.5-397B
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B98.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • AIME 2025

    Ornith-1.5-397B
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B95%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • AIME26

    Ornith-1.5-397B
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B95.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • CharXiv (overall)

    Ornith-1.5-397B
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B80.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • A-OKVQA

    Ornith-1.5-397B
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B86.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OmniDocBench 1.6

    Ornith-1.5-397B
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B89.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • RealWorldQA

    Ornith-1.5-397B
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B80.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OCRBench V2

    Ornith-1.5-397B
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B56.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • IFEval

    Ornith-1.5-397B
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B91.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • IFBench

    Ornith-1.5-397B
    Ternary Bonsai 2 27B74%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Questions

Which is better, Ornith-1.5-397B or Ternary Bonsai 2 27B?

Ornith-1.5-397B has the higher public score estimate, 65.32 versus 50.78, 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 Ternary Bonsai 2 27B?

Ornith-1.5-397B scores higher for coding on the public lane, 59 to 49.9. Ornith-1.5-397B and Ternary Bonsai 2 27B are scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; 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 Ternary Bonsai 2 27B?

Ornith-1.5-397B scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 60.9 to 49.9. Ornith-1.5-397B and Ternary Bonsai 2 27B are scored on Estimated evidence for agentic tasks, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for agentic tasks from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which costs less, Ornith-1.5-397B or Ternary Bonsai 2 27B?

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 Ternary Bonsai 2 27B?

Both models list the same context window, 262K.

Related comparisons

Last updated September 18, 2026

Watch Ornith-1.5-397B vs Ternary Bonsai 2 27B

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

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.