Ornith 1.0 vs Claude vs Qwen vs DeepSeek: Which to Choose

Side-by-side comparison of Ornith 1.0 against Claude Opus, Qwen 3.5, DeepSeek-V4, and GLM-5.2 on benchmarks, pricing, licensing, and deployment options.

Ornith 1.0 vs Competitors Overview

Model Price License TB 2.1 SWE-Bench Strength
Ornith 1.0 (397B) Free (self-host) MIT 77.5 82.4 Best open-source agentic coding model
Claude Opus 4.8 $15/$75 per 1M tokens Proprietary 85 87.6 Highest absolute scores across all benchmarks
Qwen 3.5 (397B) Free (self-host) Apache 2.0 53.5 76.4 Strong general-purpose base model
DeepSeek-V4-Pro API pricing Proprietary 64 80.6 Large-scale production model
GLM-5.2-744B Free (self-host) Open 81.0 — Tops Terminal-Bench among open models
Qwen 3.7-Max API pricing Proprietary 73.5 80.4 Good balance of quality and availability

Detailed Ornith 1.0 Comparisons

Ornith 1.0 vs Claude Opus

Claude Opus 4.8 holds the absolute top scores (Terminal-Bench 85, SWE-Bench 87.6), but Ornith 1.0 offers compelling advantages for many use cases:

Ornith 1.0 Advantages

  • • MIT licensed, completely free to use
  • • Self-hosted, zero API costs
  • • Full data privacy, runs offline
  • • No rate limits or usage caps
  • • Beats Claude Opus 4.7 on benchmarks

Claude Opus Advantages

  • • Opus 4.8 has higher absolute scores
  • • No GPU hardware needed
  • • Instant setup via API
  • • Broader capabilities beyond coding
  • • Continuous model updates

Ornith 1.0 vs Qwen 3.5

Both are open-source, but Ornith 1.0's self-scaffolding RL training gives it a massive edge on agentic coding tasks:

Terminal-Bench 2.1

77.5 vs 53.5

Ornith 1.0 +45%

SWE-Bench Verified

82.4 vs 76.4

Ornith 1.0 +8%

ClawEval Avg

77.1 vs 70.7

Ornith 1.0 +9%

Ornith 1.0 vs DeepSeek-V4-Pro

Ornith 1.0 outperforms DeepSeek-V4-Pro on both key agentic benchmarks while being fully open-source:

Terminal-Bench 2.1

77.5
64.0

SWE-Bench Verified

82.4
80.6

When to Choose Ornith 1.0

Choose Ornith 1.0 When

  • • You need a free, self-hosted coding agent
  • • Data privacy is critical (offline operation)
  • • You want no API costs or rate limits
  • • You need open-source for commercial use
  • • Your focus is agentic coding workflows
  • • You have GPU hardware available

Consider Alternatives When

  • • You need maximum absolute accuracy (Opus 4.8)
  • • You have no GPU access (use API models)
  • • You need vision/multimodal capabilities
  • • General chat/writing quality matters more
  • • You want managed infrastructure
  • • You need instant setup without hardware

Ornith 1.0 Comparison FAQ

Is Ornith 1.0 better than Claude for coding?
Ornith 1.0-397B surpasses Claude Opus 4.7 on Terminal-Bench 2.1 (77.5 vs 70.3) and SWE-Bench Verified (82.4 vs 80.8). However, Claude Opus 4.8 still leads with 85 and 87.6 respectively. The key advantage of Ornith 1.0 is that it is MIT-licensed and free to self-host, while Claude requires per-token API costs.
Should I use Ornith 1.0 or Qwen 3.5?
Ornith 1.0 significantly outperforms Qwen 3.5 on agentic coding tasks. The Ornith 1.0-397B scores 77.5 on Terminal-Bench 2.1 versus Qwen 3.5's 53.5. Even the smaller Ornith 1.0-35B (64.2) beats Qwen 3.5-397B. If your use case is agentic coding, Ornith 1.0 is the clear winner over Qwen 3.5.
How does Ornith 1.0 compare to DeepSeek-V4?
Ornith 1.0-397B outperforms DeepSeek-V4-Pro on Terminal-Bench 2.1 (77.5 vs 64) and SWE-Bench Verified (82.4 vs 80.6). Ornith 1.0 is also fully open-source under MIT license, while DeepSeek-V4-Pro has limited access. For self-hosted agentic coding, Ornith 1.0 is the stronger choice.
What about GLM-5.2 vs Ornith 1.0?
GLM-5.2-744B scores higher than Ornith 1.0-397B on Terminal-Bench 2.1 (81.0 vs 77.5), but it is almost twice the size at 744B parameters, requiring far more hardware. For comparable-size models, Ornith 1.0 leads all open-source alternatives.

Try Ornith 1.0 Today

Download Ornith 1.0 from Hugging Face and run it locally — MIT licensed, zero cost, full privacy.

Setup Guide Full Benchmarks