Model comparison
Claude 4 Sonnet vs Inkling
Head-to-head evidence from 1 shared benchmark result across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Claude 4 Sonnet unranked; Inkling #17
BenchAlign evidence: Claude 4 Sonnet supported; Inkling not scored. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude 4 Sonnet and Inkling share 1 comparable benchmark result. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 16 results are unique to Claude 4 Sonnet; 15 to Inkling.
Updated July 15, 2026- Shared results
- 1
- Claude 4 Sonnet only
- 16
- Inkling only
- 15
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Inkling if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude 4 Sonnet only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 1 shared benchmark result across 1 evidence category; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Inkling is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 69 to 48. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude 4 Sonnet is also the more expensive model on tokens at $3.00 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $1.87 input / $4.68 output per 1M tokens for Inkling. That is roughly 3.2x on output cost alone. Inkling is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude 4 Sonnet 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. Inkling gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for Claude 4 Sonnet.
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 | Claude 4 Sonnet | Δ | Inkling |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Claude 4 Sonnet72.7 | Margin← 4.1 | Inkling68.6 |
| Agentic | Claude 4 SonnetNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Inkling69.4 |
| Knowledge | Claude 4 SonnetNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Inkling51.7 |
| Math | Claude 4 SonnetNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Inkling97.1 |
| Multimodal | Claude 4 SonnetNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Inkling76.5 |
| Inst. Following | Claude 4 SonnetNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Inkling79.8 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 72.7%B 77.6%Winner: InklingΔ 4.9SWE-bench Verified: Claude 4 Sonnet scored 72.7%; Inkling scored 77.6%. Inkling wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude 4 Sonnet | Inkling | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude 4 Sonnet$3 input / $15 output | Inkling$1.87 input / $4.68 output | Inkling has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude 4 Sonnet40 tok/s | InklingNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude 4 Sonnet1.33 s | InklingNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude 4 Sonnet200K | Inkling1M | Inkling lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4 Sonnet | Inkling | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 52.3% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 39.66% | — | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | 18.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 63.8% | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 77.1% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 74.1% | Not comparable |
| Design Arena Agentic Web DevSource | — | 1258 | Not comparable |
CodingClaude 4 Sonnet wins5 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4 Sonnet | Inkling | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 25.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 68.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 4.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -9.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 22.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 40.8% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | — | 87.9% | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 87.9% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 46% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | — | 30% | Not comparable |
Math1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4 Sonnet | Inkling | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME26Source | — | 97.1% | Not comparable |
Multimodal5 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Claude 4 Sonnet or Inkling?
Inkling is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 69 to 48. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 72.7% and 77.6%.
Which is better for coding, Claude 4 Sonnet or Inkling?
Claude 4 Sonnet has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 72.7 versus 68.6. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
The AI models change fast. We track them for you.
A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.