Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Ornith-1.0-397B vs Qwen3.7 Max

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 7 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

Ornith-1.0-397B
DeepReinforce AI
N/A
No comparison
72.84/100
1 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Ornith-1.0-397B unranked (Not scored); Qwen3.7 Max #10 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Ornith-1.0-397B and Qwen3.7 Max share 7 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 0 results are unique to Ornith-1.0-397B; 51 to Qwen3.7 Max.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
7
Ornith-1.0-397B only
0
Qwen3.7 Max only
51
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Treat this as a split decision. Ornith-1.0-397B makes more sense if agentic is the priority; Qwen3.7 Max is the better fit if coding is the priority or you need the larger 1M context window.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 7 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

Ornith-1.0-397B and Qwen3.7 Max 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.

Qwen3.7 Max gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for Ornith-1.0-397B.

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 Ornith-1.0-397B and Qwen3.7 Max
CategoryOrnith-1.0-397BΔQwen3.7 Max
AgenticOrnith-1.0-397B77.5Margin← 7.8Qwen3.7 Max69.7
CodingOrnith-1.0-397B74.6Margin→ 3.3Qwen3.7 Max77.9
ReasoningOrnith-1.0-397BNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max90.4
KnowledgeOrnith-1.0-397BNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max64.2
MathOrnith-1.0-397BNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max97.1
MultilingualOrnith-1.0-397BNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max87.0
Inst. FollowingOrnith-1.0-397BNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max84.4

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Ornith-1.0-397BB · Qwen3.7 Max

  1. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 77.5%B 69.7%
    Winner: Ornith-1.0-397BΔ 7.8
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Ornith-1.0-397B scored 77.5%; Qwen3.7 Max scored 69.7%. Ornith-1.0-397B wins this benchmark.

  2. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 82.4%B 80.4%
    Winner: Ornith-1.0-397BΔ 2
    SWE-bench Verified: Ornith-1.0-397B scored 82.4%; Qwen3.7 Max scored 80.4%. Ornith-1.0-397B wins this benchmark.

  3. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 62.2%B 60.6%
    Winner: Ornith-1.0-397BΔ 1.6
    SWE-bench Pro: Ornith-1.0-397B scored 62.2%; Qwen3.7 Max scored 60.6%. Ornith-1.0-397B wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricOrnith-1.0-397BQwen3.7 MaxComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensOrnith-1.0-397B$0 input / $0 outputQwen3.7 MaxNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondOrnith-1.0-397BNot availableQwen3.7 MaxNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenOrnith-1.0-397BNot availableQwen3.7 MaxNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensOrnith-1.0-397B256KQwen3.7 Max1MQwen3.7 Max lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticOrnith-1.0-397B wins
BenchmarkOrnith-1.0-397BQwen3.7 MaxResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 77.5%69.7%Ornith-1.0-397B leads
Claw-EvalSource 77.1%65.2%Ornith-1.0-397B leads
QwenClawBenchSource —64.3%Not comparable
QwenWebBenchSource —1568Not comparable
BFCL v4Source —75.0%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource —76.4%Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource —47.9%Not comparable
HLE w/ toolsSource —53.5%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —30.6%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource —94.7%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —38.7%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —1273Not comparable
Gert LabsSource —64.27%Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource —18.7%Not comparable
AA BriefcaseSource —908Not comparable
AA AutomationBenchSource —25.6%Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource —45.0%Not comparable
AA ITBenchSource —42.5%Not comparable
terminalBenchHardSource —50.8%Not comparable
aaTerminalBench21Source —74.5%Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource —83.4%Not comparable
CodingQwen3.7 Max wins
BenchmarkOrnith-1.0-397BQwen3.7 MaxResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 82.4%80.4%Ornith-1.0-397B leads
SWE-bench ProSource 62.2%60.6%Ornith-1.0-397B leads
SWE MultilingualSource 78.9%78.3%Ornith-1.0-397B leads
NL2RepoSource 48.2%47.2%Ornith-1.0-397B leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 77.5%69.7%Ornith-1.0-397B leads
SciCodeSource —53.5%Not comparable
LiveCodeBenchSource —91.6%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —66.0%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource —48.8%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkOrnith-1.0-397BQwen3.7 MaxResult
MRCRv2Source —90.4%Not comparable
CritPtSource —13.4%Not comparable
AA-LCRSource —69.0%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkOrnith-1.0-397BQwen3.7 MaxResult
GPQASource —92.4%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource —92.4%Not comparable
HLESource —41.4%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource —89.6%Not comparable
MMLU-ReduxSource —95%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource —73.6%Not comparable
MMMLUSource —90.3%Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource —46.0%Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource —92.3%Not comparable
AA-HLESource —38.1%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource —14.1%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource —30.1%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource —22.9%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkOrnith-1.0-397BQwen3.7 MaxResult
HMMT Feb 2026Source —97.1%Not comparable
IMOAnswerBenchSource —90.0%Not comparable
ApexSource —44.5%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkOrnith-1.0-397BQwen3.7 MaxResult
MMLU-ProXSource —87%Not comparable
NOVA-63Source —59.0%Not comparable
INCLUDESource —86.2%Not comparable
MAXIFESource —89.2%Not comparable
PolyMathSource —86.5%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkOrnith-1.0-397BQwen3.7 MaxResult
Design Arena WebsiteSource —1293Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkOrnith-1.0-397BQwen3.7 MaxResult
IFEvalSource —94.3%Not comparable
IFBenchSource —79.1%Not comparable
AA-IFBenchSource —80.5%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, Ornith-1.0-397B or Qwen3.7 Max?

Ornith-1.0-397B and Qwen3.7 Max 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, Ornith-1.0-397B or Qwen3.7 Max?

Qwen3.7 Max has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 77.9 versus 74.6. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Ornith-1.0-397B or Qwen3.7 Max?

Ornith-1.0-397B has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 77.5 versus 69.7. Inside this category, Claw-Eval is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

DeepReinforce AI 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.