Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs Ornith-1.0-35B

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 3 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

65.07/100
No comparison
Ornith-1.0-35B
DeepReinforce AI
N/A
2 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Sonnet 4.6 #32 (Supported); Ornith-1.0-35B unranked (Not scored). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Ornith-1.0-35B share 3 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 30 results are unique to Claude Sonnet 4.6; 4 to Ornith-1.0-35B.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
3
Claude Sonnet 4.6 only
30
Ornith-1.0-35B only
4
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Treat this as a split decision. Claude Sonnet 4.6 makes more sense if coding is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model; Ornith-1.0-35B is the better fit if you want the cheaper token bill or you need the larger 256K context window.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 3 shared benchmark results across 2 evidence categories; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Ornith-1.0-35B finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.

Claude Sonnet 4.6 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $3.00 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Ornith-1.0-35B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Ornith-1.0-35B is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude Sonnet 4.6 is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Ornith-1.0-35B gives you the larger context window at 256K, compared with 200K for Claude Sonnet 4.6.

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 scores and score margins for Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Ornith-1.0-35B
CategoryClaude Sonnet 4.6ΔOrnith-1.0-35B
CodingClaude Sonnet 4.669.1Margin← 3.2Ornith-1.0-35B65.9
AgenticClaude Sonnet 4.665.2Margin← 1.0Ornith-1.0-35B64.2
KnowledgeClaude Sonnet 4.666.0MarginNo overlapOrnith-1.0-35BNot measured
MathClaude Sonnet 4.626.4MarginNo overlapOrnith-1.0-35BNot measured
MultimodalClaude Sonnet 4.677.4MarginNo overlapOrnith-1.0-35BNot measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Claude Sonnet 4.6B · Ornith-1.0-35B

  1. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 59.1%B 64.2%
    Winner: Ornith-1.0-35BΔ 5.1
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 59.1%; Ornith-1.0-35B scored 64.2%. Ornith-1.0-35B wins this benchmark.

  2. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 79.6%B 75.6%
    Winner: Claude Sonnet 4.6Δ 4
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 79.6%; Ornith-1.0-35B scored 75.6%. Claude Sonnet 4.6 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricClaude Sonnet 4.6Ornith-1.0-35BComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Sonnet 4.6$3 input / $15 outputOrnith-1.0-35B$0 input / $0 outputOrnith-1.0-35B has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Sonnet 4.644 tok/sOrnith-1.0-35BNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Sonnet 4.61.48 sOrnith-1.0-35BNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Sonnet 4.6200KOrnith-1.0-35B256KOrnith-1.0-35B lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticClaude Sonnet 4.6 wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Ornith-1.0-35BResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 59.1%64.2%Ornith-1.0-35B leads
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 72.1%—Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource 67.8%69.8%Ornith-1.0-35B leads
CyberGymSource 65.2%—Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 79.5%—Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 62.92%—Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source 8.3%—Not comparable
JobBenchSource 36.9%—Not comparable
CodingClaude Sonnet 4.6 wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Ornith-1.0-35BResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 79.6%75.6%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
SWE-RebenchSource 60.7%—Not comparable
React Native EvalsSource 80.6%—Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource 51.48%—Not comparable
cursorBench31Source 48.8%—Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 46.9%—Not comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource 24.3%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource —50.4%Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource —69.3%Not comparable
NL2RepoSource —34.6%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —64.2%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Ornith-1.0-35BResult
AA-LCRSource 57.7%—Not comparable
CritPtSource 0.9%—Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Ornith-1.0-35BResult
GPQASource 89.9%—Not comparable
SuperGPQASource 95%—Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource 79.2%—Not comparable
HLESource 49%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 35.9%—Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 79.9%—Not comparable
AA-HLESource 13.2%—Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -2.9%—Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 38.0%—Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 65.9%—Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Ornith-1.0-35BResult
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 32.400%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 8.300%—Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Ornith-1.0-35BResult
CharXivSource 77.4%—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 70.6%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1314—Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Ornith-1.0-35BResult
AA-IFBenchSource 41.2%—Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Ornith-1.0-35B?

Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Ornith-1.0-35B are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.

Which is better for coding, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Ornith-1.0-35B?

Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 69.1 versus 65.9. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Ornith-1.0-35B?

Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 65.2 versus 64.2. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 23, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.