Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) vs Inkling-Small

Updated July 30, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)

Anthropic

71.5/100

Estimated · Public rank #14

90% interval 61.7–81.4

Inkling-Small

Thinking Machines Lab

—

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.

13 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. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback

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.

8 Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only

13 Shared

7 Inkling-Small only

Shared results: 13
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only: 8
Inkling-Small only: 7
Like-for-like categories: 2 / 8

3 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.

Reasoning

Like-for-like

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive): 75.8
Inkling-Small: 40.1
Weighted basis: 1 vs 1 rows
Reading: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads

Knowledge

Like-for-like

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive): 60.0
Inkling-Small: 53.4
Weighted basis: 2 vs 2 rows
Reading: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads

Agentic

Directional only

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive): 75.1
Inkling-Small: 70.1
Weighted basis: 3 vs 2 rows
Reading: Directional only

Coding

Directional only

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive): 78.6
Inkling-Small: 62.4
Weighted basis: 2 vs 3 rows
Reading: Directional only

Multimodal

Directional only

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive): 65.1
Inkling-Small: 76.6
Weighted basis: 2 vs 2 rows
Reading: Directional only

Math

Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive): Not measured
Inkling-Small: 92.9
Weighted basis: 0 vs 2 rows
Reading: Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive): Not measured
Inkling-Small: Not measured
Weighted basis: 0 vs 0 rows
Reading: Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive): Not measured
Inkling-Small: 82.2
Weighted basis: 0 vs 1 rows
Reading: Not comparable

Category averages with the server-provided evidence basis for Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) and Inkling-Small
Category	Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)	Inkling-Small	Weighted basis	Reading
Reasoning	75.8	40.1	Like-for-like1 vs 1 rows	Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
Knowledge	60.0	53.4	Like-for-like2 vs 2 rows	Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
Agentic	75.1	70.1	Directional only3 vs 2 rows	Directional only
Coding	78.6	62.4	Directional only2 vs 3 rows	Directional only
Multimodal	65.1	76.6	Directional only2 vs 2 rows	Directional only
Math	Not measured	92.9	Not comparable0 vs 2 rows	Not comparable
Multilingual	Not measured	Not measured	Not comparable0 vs 0 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.

ARC-AGI-2
Reasoning
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive): 75.8%Inkling-Small: 40.1%Normalized gap 35.7Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) source Inkling-Small source
CharXiv
Multimodal
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive): 91%Inkling-Small: 81.3%Normalized gap 9.7Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) source Inkling-Small source
SWE-bench Pro
Coding
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive): 64.3%Inkling-Small: 55.9%Normalized gap 8.4Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) source Inkling-Small source
SWE-bench Verified
Coding
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive): 87.6%Inkling-Small: 80.2%Normalized gap 7.4Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) source Inkling-Small source
HLE
Knowledge
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive): 54.7%Inkling-Small: 47.8%Normalized gap 6.9Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) 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 Opus 4.7 (Adaptive): $0.0175; 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 Opus 4.7 (Adaptive): $0.325; 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 Opus 4.7 (Adaptive): $1.35; Fits in one request; Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Inkling-Small: $0.0492; Fits in one request

Inkling-Small has the lower modeled cost

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) 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 Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Inkling-Small

Context window

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

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)

Inkling-Small

API model ID

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)

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 Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)

Not published

Inkling-Small

$0.116 per 1M cached input tokens

Documented inputs

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)

Not sourced

Inkling-Small

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)

Not sourced

Inkling-Small

Not sourced

Provider availability

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)

Not sourced

Inkling-Small

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)

Reasoning

Inkling-Small

Hybrid

Weight access

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)

Proprietary

Inkling-Small

Open Weight

License

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)

Proprietary

Inkling-Small

Open Weight

Release date

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)

2026-04-16

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: $0.325 vs $0.03332. Cache-heavy agent loop: $1.35 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 evidence28 rows

Agentic

Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)69.4%
Source
Inkling-Small64.7%
Source
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads this result
BrowseComp
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)79.3%
Source
Inkling-Small77.4%
Source
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads this result
MCP Atlas
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)77.3%
Source
Inkling-Small79.6%
Source
Inkling-Small leads this result
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)78%
Source
Inkling-Small—
Not directly comparable
CyberGym
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)73.1%
Source
Inkling-Small—
Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)18.2%
Source
Inkling-Small—
Not directly comparable
JobBench
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)45.9%
Source
Inkling-Small—
Not directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
Inkling-Small54.4%
Source
Not directly comparable

Coding

SWE-bench Verified
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)87.6%
Source
Inkling-Small80.2%
Source
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads this result
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)64.3%
Source
Inkling-Small55.9%
Source
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)69.4%
Source
Inkling-Small64.7%
Source
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads this result
SciCode
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
Inkling-Small48.7%
Source
Not directly comparable

Reasoning

MRCR v2 128K-256K
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)59.2%
Source
Inkling-Small—
Not directly comparable
ARC-AGI-2
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.8%
Source
Inkling-Small40.1%
Source
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads this result
ARC-AGI-3
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)0.2%
Source
Inkling-Small—
Not directly comparable
CritPt
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
Inkling-Small8.3%
Source
Not directly comparable

Knowledge

GPQA
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)94.2%
Source
Inkling-Small89.5%
Source
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads this result
GPQA-D
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)94.2%
Source
Inkling-Small89.5%
Source
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads this result
HLE
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)54.7%
Source
Inkling-Small47.8%
Source
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads this result
HLE w/o tools
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)46.9%
Source
Inkling-Small31.6%
Source
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads this result

Math

FrontierMath (legacy)
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)43.8%
Source
Inkling-Small—
Not directly comparable
AIME26
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
Inkling-Small95.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2026
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
Inkling-Small90.2%
Source
Not directly comparable

Multimodal

OfficeQA Pro
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)43.6%
Source
Inkling-Small—
Not directly comparable
CharXiv
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)91%
Source
Inkling-Small81.3%
Source
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads this result
CharXiv w/o tools
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)82.1%
Source
Inkling-Small77.4%
Source
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads this result
MMMU-Pro
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
Inkling-Small74%
Source
Not directly comparable

Instruction following

IFBench
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
Inkling-Small82.2%
Source
Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) 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 Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) 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 Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) 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 Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Inkling-Small?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0175 on Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) and $0.0013 on Inkling-Small; repository review costs $0.325 and $0.03332; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $1.35 and $0.0492. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

Which has the larger context window, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Inkling-Small?

Both models list the same context window, 1M.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated July 30, 2026

Watch Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) 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.

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) vs Inkling-Small

Which one for your work

Chat turn cost

Cache-heavy agent loop cost

Repository review cost

Coding work

Agentic work

Long documents

What is actually comparable

Category results, on a stated basis

Reasoning

Knowledge

Agentic

Coding

Multimodal

Math

Multilingual

Instruction following

Shape of the matched evidence

What each workload costs

Chat turn

Repository review

Cache-heavy agent loop

Specification differences

Context window

API model ID

Cached-input rate

Documented inputs

Documented outputs

Provider availability

Reasoning profile

Weight access

License

Release date

Benchmark evidence

Agentic

Coding

Reasoning

Knowledge

Math

Multimodal

Instruction following

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Inkling-Small?

Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Inkling-Small?

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Inkling-Small?

Which costs less, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Inkling-Small?

Which has the larger context window, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Inkling-Small?

Related comparisons

Watch Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) vs Inkling-Small