Websites that test fingerprinting are useless. Not only they test methods that were in use 20 years ago, but the whole point of good fingerprinter is to not allow a malicious ad/tracking .js to run in the first place. So when such site reports Orion is "unique" it is only because Orion let its .js tu run (because it did not qualify it as malicious).
The main point wint fingerprinting to understand is that is you can not ousmart a sophisticated fingerprinter if one is allowed to run. (we are talking about audio driver or GPU fingerprinting here, not screen width nonsense popularised in marketing by browsers and fingerprinting 'testers' that are not serious about this)
Your best bet is blocking the .js that runs fingerprinting which is the whole point of built in total ad/tracker protection and this is exactly what Orion is doing.
What some browsers do is ship a product that checks the non-sensical "screen.width" anti-fingerprinting test , but do nothing to protect you against real fingerprinting out there in the open today.
Screen resolution fingerprinting was a thing in 2005. Here is what we are up against these days:
GPU fingerprinting
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2201.09956.pdf
https://www.techpowerup.com/291518/researchers-exploit-gpu-fingerprinting-to-track-users-online
Audio fingerprinting:
https://www.cs.princeton.edu/~arvindn/publications/OpenWPM_1_million_site_tracking_measurement.pdf
https://techcrunch.com/2016/05/19/audio-fingerprinting-being-used-to-track-web-users-study-finds/
Your browser does not protect you from that UNLESS the .js with the fingerprinter was blocked in the first place.
If you are serious about fingerprinting, you need to mercilessly block everything you can and that is what we are doing. Orion blocks all ads and all trackers by default with a combination of both block lists and machine learning driven ITP avaialble only in WebKit.
We are already throwing everything we have at the problem, the right way. Again, the reason you may see you are 'unique' in a fingerprinting 'test' is only because Orion allowed the js to run on that site, because it did not qualify it as malicious (which it isn't). Frankly, any browser that employs so called 'anti-fingerprinting' for something that was a thing 20 years is doing that for marketing purposes and should get negative points in any privacy test.
Note also that privacytests.org is ran by a Brave employee and does not test for what is the biggest threat to user privacy in browsers - telemetry. Orion is zero-telemetry by default, checking that box too unlike Brave and other mainstream browsers.