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
Keep up with the models you depend on. Follow price changes, retirements, and API updates.Follow the models you depend on.
Follow model changesUpdated September 10, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
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
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.
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
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
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Inkling-Small
Inkling-Small has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
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
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
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
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
1 category rests on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
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.
| Category | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Inkling-Small | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 27.0Supported · #142/152 | 36.9Supported · #128/152 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign lane · 2 vs 5 public rows | Inkling-Small leads · intervals overlap |
| Coding | 27.2Supported · #144/151 | 43.8Supported · #97/151 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign lane · 4 vs 6 public rows | Inkling-Small leads · intervals overlap |
| Knowledge | 44.2Estimated · #115/183 | 56.5Supported · #46/183 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 2 vs 6 public rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | Not ranked | 42.7Unranked · 3 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 28.9Unranked · 2 rankable rows | 76.9Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 2 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not ranked | 48.8#39/48 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | 89.6#25/123 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | 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.
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.
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Coding
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Knowledge
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.
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Inkling-Small has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Inkling-Small has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Claude Haiku 4.5 does not fit this workload in one request.
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Haiku 4.5
Inkling-Small
1M
Claude Haiku 4.5
claude-haiku-4-5-20251001
Claude API pricingInkling-Small
Not sourced
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 pricingInkling-Small
$0.116 per 1M cached input tokens
Claude Haiku 4.5
Not sourced
Inkling-Small
Not sourced
Claude Haiku 4.5
Not sourced
Inkling-Small
Not sourced
Claude Haiku 4.5
Not sourced
Inkling-Small
Not sourced
Claude Haiku 4.5
Non-Reasoning
Inkling-Small
Hybrid
Claude Haiku 4.5
Proprietary
Inkling-Small
Open Weight
Claude Haiku 4.5
Proprietary
Inkling-Small
Open Weight
Claude Haiku 4.5
2025-10-15
Inkling-Small
2026-07-30
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
JobBench
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Inkling-Small leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Not directly comparable
BrowseComp
Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Not directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
Inkling-Small leads this result
VulcanBench v3
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Inkling-Small leads this result
SWE-bench (Vals)
Inkling-Small leads this result
SWE-bench Pro
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Not directly comparable
SciCode
Not directly comparable
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Inkling-Small leads this result
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Inkling-Small leads this result
GPQA
Not directly comparable
GPQA-D
Not directly comparable
HLE
Not directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Not directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Not directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Not directly comparable
AIME26
Not directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2026
Not directly comparable
IFBench
Not directly comparable
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.
Inkling-Small leads the public coding lane, 43.8 to 27.2, with Supported evidence for both models, although the 90% intervals overlap.
Inkling-Small leads the public agentic tasks lane, 36.9 to 27, with Supported evidence for both models, although the 90% intervals overlap.
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.
Inkling-Small has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 200K.
Last updated September 10, 2026
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.