Skip to main content
Radar

Keep up with the models you depend on. Follow price changes, retirements, and API updates.Follow the models you depend on.

Follow model changes
Anthropic logo
Model A
Claude Haiku 4.5

Anthropic

52.79/100

Supported · Public rank #111

90% interval 40.265.3

Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Inkling-Small

Updated September 10, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Thinking Machines Lab logo
Model B
Inkling-Small

Thinking Machines Lab

59.25/100

Supported · Public rank #69

90% interval 52.466.1

Decision reading

Inkling-Small has the higher public score estimate, 59.25 versus 52.79, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.

6 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Share or export

Share on XLinkedInSocial cardCSVJSON

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.

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Inkling-Small

    Inkling-Small leads on the public coding lane, 43.8 to 27.2, with Supported evidence for both models, although the 90% intervals overlap.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Inkling-Small

    Inkling-Small leads on the public agentic lane, 36.9 to 27, with Supported evidence for both models, although the 90% intervals overlap.

    Confidence: limited

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    Inkling-Small

    Inkling-Small has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented

Show secondary and unsupported calls
  • 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

  • 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

  • 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 Haiku 4.5 does not fit this workload in one request.

    Confidence: listed-rates

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

Shared results
6
Claude Haiku 4.5 only
4
Inkling-Small only
19
Like-for-like categories
2 / 8

1 category rests on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.

Agentic

Like-for-like
Claude Haiku 4.5
27.0
Supported · #142/152
Inkling-Small
36.9
Supported · #128/152
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 2 vs 5 public rows
Reading
Inkling-Small leads · intervals overlap

Coding

Like-for-like
Claude Haiku 4.5
27.2
Supported · #144/151
Inkling-Small
43.8
Supported · #97/151
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 4 vs 6 public rows
Reading
Inkling-Small leads · intervals overlap

Knowledge

Directional only
Claude Haiku 4.5
44.2
Estimated · #115/183
Inkling-Small
56.5
Supported · #46/183
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 2 vs 6 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable
Claude Haiku 4.5
Not ranked
Inkling-Small
42.7
Unranked · 3 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Claude Haiku 4.5
28.9
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Inkling-Small
76.9
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 2 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Claude Haiku 4.5
Not ranked
Inkling-Small
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Claude Haiku 4.5
Not ranked
Inkling-Small
48.8
#39/48
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Claude Haiku 4.5
Not ranked
Inkling-Small
89.6
#25/123
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

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.

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 Haiku 4.5
$0.0035
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 Haiku 4.5
$0.065
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 Haiku 4.5
$0.09
Does not fit in one request
Inkling-Small
$0.0492
Fits in one request

Claude Haiku 4.5 does not fit this workload in one request.

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

Claude Haiku 4.5

Inkling-Small

1M

API model ID

Claude Haiku 4.5

claude-haiku-4-5-20251001

Claude API pricing

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 Haiku 4.5

$0.1 per 1M cached input tokens

Claude API pricing

Inkling-Small

$0.116 per 1M cached input tokens

Documented inputs

Claude Haiku 4.5

Not sourced

Inkling-Small

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Claude Haiku 4.5

Not sourced

Inkling-Small

Not sourced

Provider availability

Claude Haiku 4.5

Not sourced

Inkling-Small

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Claude Haiku 4.5

Non-Reasoning

Inkling-Small

Hybrid

Weight access

Claude Haiku 4.5

Proprietary

Inkling-Small

Open Weight

License

Claude Haiku 4.5

Proprietary

Inkling-Small

Open Weight

Release date

Claude Haiku 4.5

2025-10-15

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
Inkling-Small has the higher public score estimate, 59.25 versus 52.79, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
Workload cost
Repository review: $0.065 vs $0.03332. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.09 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 evidence29 rows

Agentic

  • JobBench

    Claude Haiku 4.516.0%
    Source
    Inkling-Small

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)

    Claude Haiku 4.543.8%
    Source
    Inkling-Small55.1%
    Source

    Inkling-Small leads this result

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Claude Haiku 4.5
    Inkling-Small64.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BrowseComp

    Claude Haiku 4.5
    Inkling-Small77.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    Claude Haiku 4.5
    Inkling-Small79.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon-Verified

    Claude Haiku 4.5
    Inkling-Small54.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Claude Haiku 4.573.3%
    Source
    Inkling-Small80.2%
    Source

    Inkling-Small leads this result

  • VulcanBench v3

    Claude Haiku 4.576.2%
    Source
    Inkling-Small

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench (Vals)

    Claude Haiku 4.541.2%
    Source
    Inkling-Small85.9%
    Source

    Inkling-Small leads this result

  • SWE-bench (Vals)

    Claude Haiku 4.566.6%
    Source
    Inkling-Small82.2%
    Source

    Inkling-Small leads this result

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Claude Haiku 4.5
    Inkling-Small55.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Claude Haiku 4.5
    Inkling-Small64.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SciCode

    Claude Haiku 4.5
    Inkling-Small48.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • ARC-AGI-2

    Claude Haiku 4.5
    Inkling-Small40.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CritPt

    Claude Haiku 4.5
    Inkling-Small8.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA Diamond (Vals)

    Claude Haiku 4.572.2%
    Source
    Inkling-Small83.6%
    Source

    Inkling-Small leads this result

  • MMLU-Pro (Vals)

    Claude Haiku 4.578.7%
    Source
    Inkling-Small85.6%
    Source

    Inkling-Small leads this result

  • GPQA

    Claude Haiku 4.5
    Inkling-Small89.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA-D

    Claude Haiku 4.5
    Inkling-Small89.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE

    Claude Haiku 4.5
    Inkling-Small47.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/o tools

    Claude Haiku 4.5
    Inkling-Small31.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Claude Haiku 4.55.903%
    Source
    Inkling-Small

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Claude Haiku 4.52.083%
    Source
    Inkling-Small

    Not directly comparable

  • AIME26

    Claude Haiku 4.5
    Inkling-Small95.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Feb 2026

    Claude Haiku 4.5
    Inkling-Small90.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • MMMU-Pro

    Claude Haiku 4.5
    Inkling-Small74%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv

    Claude Haiku 4.5
    Inkling-Small81.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv w/o tools

    Claude Haiku 4.5
    Inkling-Small77.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • IFBench

    Claude Haiku 4.5
    Inkling-Small82.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Inkling-Small?

Inkling-Small has the higher public score estimate, 59.25 versus 52.79, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.

Which is better for coding, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Inkling-Small?

Inkling-Small leads the public coding lane, 43.8 to 27.2, with Supported evidence for both models, although the 90% intervals overlap.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Inkling-Small?

Inkling-Small leads the public agentic tasks lane, 36.9 to 27, with Supported evidence for both models, although the 90% intervals overlap.

Which costs less, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Inkling-Small?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0035 on Claude Haiku 4.5 and $0.0013 on Inkling-Small; repository review costs $0.065 and $0.03332; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.09 and $0.0492. Claude Haiku 4.5 does not fit this workload in one request.

Which has the larger context window, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Inkling-Small?

Inkling-Small has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 200K.

Related comparisons

Last updated September 10, 2026

Watch Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Inkling-Small

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.