Coding
Directional only- Claude 4 Sonnet
- 72.7
- Inkling-Small
- 62.4
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 3 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Model comparison
Claude 4 Sonnet vs Inkling-Small
Updated July 30, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
1 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Inkling-Small
Inkling-Small has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Inkling-Small
Inkling-Small has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Inkling-Small
Inkling-Small has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Claude 4 Sonnet does not fit this workload in one request. Claude 4 Sonnet has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
2 Claude 4 Sonnet only
1 Shared
19 Inkling-Small only
- Shared results
- 1
- Claude 4 Sonnet only
- 2
- Inkling-Small only
- 19
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
1 category uses different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.
Agentic
Not comparable- Claude 4 Sonnet
- Not measured
- Inkling-Small
- 70.1
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude 4 Sonnet
- Not measured
- Inkling-Small
- 40.1
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Claude 4 Sonnet
- Not measured
- Inkling-Small
- 53.4
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude 4 Sonnet
- Not measured
- Inkling-Small
- 92.9
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude 4 Sonnet
- Not measured
- Inkling-Small
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Claude 4 Sonnet
- Not measured
- Inkling-Small
- 76.6
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude 4 Sonnet
- Not measured
- Inkling-Small
- 82.2
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude 4 Sonnet | Inkling-Small | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 72.7 | 62.4 | Directional only1 vs 3 rows | Directional only |
| Agentic | Not measured | 70.1 | Not comparable0 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not measured | 40.1 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not measured | 53.4 | Not comparable0 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not measured | 92.9 | Not comparable0 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not measured | 76.6 | Not comparable0 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | 82.2 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
SWE-bench Verified
Coding
Claude 4 Sonnet: 72.7%Inkling-Small: 80.2%Normalized gap 7.5Claude 4 Sonnet source Inkling-Small source
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Claude 4 Sonnet
- $0.0105
- Fits in one request
- Inkling-Small
- $0.0013
- Fits in one request
Inkling-Small has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Claude 4 Sonnet
- $0.195
- Fits in one request
- Inkling-Small
- $0.03332
- Fits in one request
Inkling-Small has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Claude 4 Sonnet
- $0.81
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
- Inkling-Small
- $0.0492
- Fits in one request
Claude 4 Sonnet does not fit this workload in one request. Claude 4 Sonnet has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationClaude 4 SonnetInkling-Small
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude 4 Sonnet
200K
Inkling-Small
1M
API model ID
Claude 4 Sonnet
Not sourced
Inkling-Small
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Claude 4 Sonnet
Not published
Inkling-Small
$0.116 per 1M cached input tokens
Documented inputs
Claude 4 Sonnet
Not sourced
Inkling-Small
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Claude 4 Sonnet
Not sourced
Inkling-Small
Not sourced
Provider availability
Claude 4 Sonnet
Not sourced
Inkling-Small
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Claude 4 Sonnet
Non-Reasoning
Inkling-Small
Hybrid
Weight access
Claude 4 Sonnet
Proprietary
Inkling-Small
Open Weight
License
Claude 4 Sonnet
Proprietary
Inkling-Small
Open Weight
Release date
Claude 4 Sonnet
2025-05-01
Inkling-Small
2026-07-30
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.195 vs $0.03332. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.81 vs $0.0492.
- Context tradeoff
- Inkling-Small has the larger documented window (1M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence22 rows
Agentic
Gert Labs
Claude 4 Sonnet39.66%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
JobBench
Claude 4 Sonnet18.4%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude 4 Sonnet—Inkling-Small64.7%SourceNot directly comparable
BrowseComp
Claude 4 Sonnet—Inkling-Small77.4%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Claude 4 Sonnet—Inkling-Small79.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
Claude 4 Sonnet—Inkling-Small54.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Claude 4 Sonnet72.7%SourceInkling-Small80.2%SourceInkling-Small leads this result
SWE-bench Pro
Claude 4 Sonnet—Inkling-Small55.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude 4 Sonnet—Inkling-Small64.7%SourceNot directly comparable
SciCode
Claude 4 Sonnet—Inkling-Small48.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Knowledge
Math
Multimodal
Instruction following
IFBench
Claude 4 Sonnet—Inkling-Small82.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Claude 4 Sonnet or Inkling-Small?
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, Claude 4 Sonnet or Inkling-Small?
The current coding averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude 4 Sonnet or Inkling-Small?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.
Which costs less, Claude 4 Sonnet or Inkling-Small?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0105 on Claude 4 Sonnet and $0.0013 on Inkling-Small; repository review costs $0.195 and $0.03332; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.81 and $0.0492. Claude 4 Sonnet does not fit this workload in one request. Claude 4 Sonnet has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, Claude 4 Sonnet or Inkling-Small?
Inkling-Small has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 200K.
Related comparisons
Last updated July 30, 2026
Watch Claude 4 Sonnet vs Inkling-Small
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.