Agentic
Directional only- Claude Fable 5
- 84.6
- Inkling-Small
- 70.1
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Model comparison
Claude Fable 5 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.
4 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.
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
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K 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
The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
Confidence: documented
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
7 Claude Fable 5 only
4 Shared
16 Inkling-Small only
- Shared results
- 4
- Claude Fable 5 only
- 7
- Inkling-Small only
- 16
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
2 categories use 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.
Coding
Directional only- Claude Fable 5
- 89.2
- Inkling-Small
- 62.4
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 3 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5
- Not measured
- Inkling-Small
- 40.1
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5
- Not measured
- Inkling-Small
- 53.4
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5
- Not measured
- Inkling-Small
- 92.9
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5
- Not measured
- Inkling-Small
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5
- 57.9
- Inkling-Small
- 76.6
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5
- Not measured
- Inkling-Small
- 82.2
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Fable 5 | Inkling-Small | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 84.6 | 70.1 | Directional only2 vs 2 rows | Directional only |
| Coding | 89.2 | 62.4 | Directional only2 vs 3 rows | Directional only |
| 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 | 57.9 | 76.6 | Not comparable1 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 Pro
Coding
Claude Fable 5: 80%Inkling-Small: 55.9%Normalized gap 24.1Claude Fable 5 source Inkling-Small sourceTerminal-Bench 2.0
Agentic
Claude Fable 5: 84.3%Inkling-Small: 64.7%Normalized gap 19.6Claude Fable 5 source Inkling-Small sourceSWE-bench Verified
Coding
Claude Fable 5: 95%Inkling-Small: 80.2%Normalized gap 14.8Claude Fable 5 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 Fable 5
- $0.035
- 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 Fable 5
- $0.65
- 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 Fable 5
- $0.9
- Fits in one request
- Inkling-Small
- $0.0492
- Fits in one request
Inkling-Small has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationClaude Fable 5Inkling-Small
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Fable 5
Inkling-Small
1M
API model ID
Claude Fable 5
claude-fable-5
Anthropic model overviewInkling-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 Fable 5
$1 per 1M cached input tokens
Claude API pricingInkling-Small
$0.116 per 1M cached input tokens
Documented inputs
Claude Fable 5
text, image
Anthropic model overviewInkling-Small
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Claude Fable 5
Inkling-Small
Not sourced
Provider availability
Claude Fable 5
Generally Available · Claude API
Anthropic model overviewInkling-Small
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Claude Fable 5
Reasoning
Inkling-Small
Hybrid
Weight access
Claude Fable 5
Proprietary
Inkling-Small
Open Weight
License
Claude Fable 5
Proprietary
Inkling-Small
Open Weight
Release date
Claude Fable 5
2026-06-09
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: $0.65 vs $0.03332. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.9 vs $0.0492.
- Context tradeoff
- Both models list 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 evidence27 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Fable 584.3%SourceInkling-Small64.7%SourceClaude Fable 5 leads this result
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Fable 585%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
BrowseComp
Claude Fable 5—Inkling-Small77.4%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Claude Fable 5—Inkling-Small79.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
Claude Fable 5—Inkling-Small54.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Claude Fable 595%SourceInkling-Small80.2%SourceClaude Fable 5 leads this result
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Fable 580%SourceInkling-Small55.9%SourceClaude Fable 5 leads this result
FrontierCode 1.1 Main
Claude Fable 553.5%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Fable 584.3%SourceInkling-Small64.7%SourceClaude Fable 5 leads this result
cursorBench31
Claude Fable 570.6%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
cursorBench32
Claude Fable 570.5%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
VulcanBench v3
Claude Fable 587.0%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
SciCode
Claude Fable 5—Inkling-Small48.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Knowledge
Math
Multimodal
Blueprint-Bench 2
Claude Fable 538.6%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
OfficeQA Pro
Claude Fable 557.9%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
MMMU-Pro
Claude Fable 5—Inkling-Small74%SourceNot directly comparable
CharXiv
Claude Fable 5—Inkling-Small81.3%SourceNot directly comparable
CharXiv w/o tools
Claude Fable 5—Inkling-Small77.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Instruction following
IFBench
Claude Fable 5—Inkling-Small82.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Claude Fable 5 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 Fable 5 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 Fable 5 or Inkling-Small?
The current agentic tasks 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 costs less, Claude Fable 5 or Inkling-Small?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.035 on Claude Fable 5 and $0.0013 on Inkling-Small; repository review costs $0.65 and $0.03332; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.9 and $0.0492. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Which has the larger context window, Claude Fable 5 or Inkling-Small?
Both models list the same context window, 1M.
Related comparisons
Last updated July 30, 2026
Watch Claude Fable 5 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.