Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 5 vs Inkling-Small

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

Claude Opus 5

Anthropic

82.8/100

Supported · Public rank #2

90% interval 78.6–87.0

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.

8 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.

Shared results
8
Claude Opus 5 only
54
Inkling-Small only
12
Like-for-like categories
1 / 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 5
90.4
Inkling-Small
40.1
Weighted basis
1 vs 1 rows
Reading
Claude Opus 5 leads

Agentic

Directional only
Claude Opus 5
90.8
Inkling-Small
70.1
Weighted basis
1 vs 2 rows
Reading
Directional only

Coding

Directional only
Claude Opus 5
89.5
Inkling-Small
62.4
Weighted basis
2 vs 3 rows
Reading
Directional only

Knowledge

Directional only
Claude Opus 5
64.7
Inkling-Small
53.4
Weighted basis
1 vs 2 rows
Reading
Directional only

Math

Not comparable
Claude Opus 5
Not measured
Inkling-Small
92.9
Weighted basis
0 vs 2 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Claude Opus 5
Not measured
Inkling-Small
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Claude Opus 5
66.9
Inkling-Small
76.6
Weighted basis
1 vs 2 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Claude Opus 5
Not measured
Inkling-Small
82.2
Weighted basis
0 vs 1 rows
Reading
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.

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 5
$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 5
$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 5
$0.45
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.

Context window

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

Inkling-Small

1M

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

Claude Opus 5

$0.5 per 1M cached input tokens

Claude API pricing

Inkling-Small

$0.116 per 1M cached input tokens

Reasoning profile

Claude Opus 5

Reasoning

Inkling-Small

Hybrid

Weight access

Claude Opus 5

Proprietary

Inkling-Small

Open Weight

License

Claude Opus 5

Proprietary

Inkling-Small

Open Weight

Release date

Claude Opus 5

2026-07-24

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: $0.45 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 evidence74 rows

Agentic

  • FrontierBench v0.1

    Claude Opus 543.3%
    Source
    Inkling-Small—

    Not directly comparable

  • BrowseComp

    Claude Opus 590.8%
    Source
    Inkling-Small77.4%
    Source

    Claude Opus 5 leads this result

  • HLE w/ tools

    Claude Opus 564.7%
    Source
    Inkling-Small—

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSearchQA

    Claude Opus 595.0%
    Source
    Inkling-Small—

    Not directly comparable

  • DRACO

    Claude Opus 588.6%
    Source
    Inkling-Small—

    Not directly comparable

  • BrowseComp (10-agent, prerelease)

    Claude Opus 593.6%
    Source
    Inkling-Small—

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld 2.0

    Claude Opus 570.6%
    Source
    Inkling-Small—

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    Claude Opus 585.8%
    Source
    Inkling-Small79.6%
    Source

    Claude Opus 5 leads this result

  • MCP-Atlas claim coverage

    Claude Opus 589.1%
    Source
    Inkling-Small—

    Not directly comparable

  • LAB all-pass (Anthropic harness)

    Claude Opus 523.58%
    Source
    Inkling-Small—

    Not directly comparable

  • LAB criterion-pass (Anthropic harness)

    Claude Opus 593.74%
    Source
    Inkling-Small—

    Not directly comparable

  • LAB all-pass (Harvey held-out)

    Claude Opus 511.7%
    Source
    Inkling-Small—

    Not directly comparable

  • LAB criterion-pass (Harvey held-out)

    Claude Opus 594.1%
    Source
    Inkling-Small—

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon-Verified

    Claude Opus 580.6%
    Source
    Inkling-Small54.4%
    Source

    Claude Opus 5 leads this result

  • Toolathlon Verified Pass@3

    Claude Opus 587.0%
    Source
    Inkling-Small—

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon Verified Pass³

    Claude Opus 573.1%
    Source
    Inkling-Small—

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon Verified avg. turns

    Claude Opus 523.5 turns
    Source
    Inkling-Small—

    Not directly comparable

  • AutomationBench

    Claude Opus 526.0%
    Source
    Inkling-Small—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Claude Opus 5—
    Inkling-Small64.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Claude Opus 596%
    Source
    Inkling-Small80.2%
    Source

    Claude Opus 5 leads this result

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Claude Opus 579.2%
    Source
    Inkling-Small55.9%
    Source

    Claude Opus 5 leads this result

  • SWE Multilingual

    Claude Opus 589.5%
    Source
    Inkling-Small—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE Multimodal

    Claude Opus 559.4%
    Source
    Inkling-Small—

    Not directly comparable

  • deepSwe

    Claude Opus 568.8%
    Source
    Inkling-Small—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierCode 1.1 Main

    Claude Opus 553.4%
    Source
    Inkling-Small—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierCode 1.1 Extended

    Claude Opus 563.6%
    Source
    Inkling-Small—

    Not directly comparable

  • ProgramBench (episode 1)

    Claude Opus 583.0%
    Source
    Inkling-Small—

    Not directly comparable

  • ProgramBench

    Claude Opus 593.0%
    Source
    Inkling-Small—

    Not directly comparable

  • cursorBench32

    Claude Opus 570.0%
    Source
    Inkling-Small—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Claude Opus 5—
    Inkling-Small64.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SciCode

    Claude Opus 5—
    Inkling-Small48.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • ARC-AGI-1

    Claude Opus 597.50%
    Source
    Inkling-Small—

    Not directly comparable

  • ARC-AGI-2

    Claude Opus 590.4%
    Source
    Inkling-Small40.1%
    Source

    Claude Opus 5 leads this result

  • ARC-AGI-3

    Claude Opus 530.2%
    Source
    Inkling-Small—

    Not directly comparable

  • CritPt

    Claude Opus 5—
    Inkling-Small8.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • HLE

    Claude Opus 564.7%
    Source
    Inkling-Small47.8%
    Source

    Claude Opus 5 leads this result

  • HLE w/o tools

    Claude Opus 556.3%
    Source
    Inkling-Small31.6%
    Source

    Claude Opus 5 leads this result

  • HealthBench (raw)

    Claude Opus 567.1%
    Source
    Inkling-Small—

    Not directly comparable

  • HealthBench (length-adjusted)

    Claude Opus 557.8%
    Source
    Inkling-Small—

    Not directly comparable

  • HealthBench Professional

    Claude Opus 559.8%
    Source
    Inkling-Small—

    Not directly comparable

  • HealthBench Professional (raw)

    Claude Opus 573.4%
    Source
    Inkling-Small—

    Not directly comparable

  • BioMysteryBench (human-solvable)

    Claude Opus 590.1%
    Source
    Inkling-Small—

    Not directly comparable

  • BioMysteryBench (human-difficult)

    Claude Opus 549.4%
    Source
    Inkling-Small—

    Not directly comparable

  • SpatialBench Verified

    Claude Opus 572.5%
    Source
    Inkling-Small—

    Not directly comparable

  • SingleCellBench

    Claude Opus 560.6%
    Source
    Inkling-Small—

    Not directly comparable

  • ProteinGym Hard

    Claude Opus 547.7%
    Source
    Inkling-Small—

    Not directly comparable

  • Protein Design

    Claude Opus 542.5%
    Source
    Inkling-Small—

    Not directly comparable

  • Organic chemistry V2

    Claude Opus 561.6%
    Source
    Inkling-Small—

    Not directly comparable

  • Protocols (troubleshooting)

    Claude Opus 561.1%
    Source
    Inkling-Small—

    Not directly comparable

  • Protocols (understanding)

    Claude Opus 578.4%
    Source
    Inkling-Small—

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA

    Claude Opus 5—
    Inkling-Small89.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA-D

    Claude Opus 5—
    Inkling-Small89.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • IMO 2026

    Claude Opus 542/42
    Source
    Inkling-Small—

    Not directly comparable

  • RiemannBench (no tools)

    Claude Opus 560.0%
    Source
    Inkling-Small—

    Not directly comparable

  • RiemannBench (tools)

    Claude Opus 579.0%
    Source
    Inkling-Small—

    Not directly comparable

  • ArXivMath Jun. 2026 (no tools)

    Claude Opus 590.8%
    Source
    Inkling-Small—

    Not directly comparable

  • ArXivMath Jun. 2026 (tools)

    Claude Opus 591.3%
    Source
    Inkling-Small—

    Not directly comparable

  • AIME26

    Claude Opus 5—
    Inkling-Small95.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Feb 2026

    Claude Opus 5—
    Inkling-Small90.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multilingual

  • GMMLU

    Claude Opus 592.5%
    Source
    Inkling-Small—

    Not directly comparable

  • MILU

    Claude Opus 592.1%
    Source
    Inkling-Small—

    Not directly comparable

  • INCLUDE

    Claude Opus 589.8%
    Source
    Inkling-Small—

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • Chartography (no tools)

    Claude Opus 529.6%
    Source
    Inkling-Small—

    Not directly comparable

  • Chartography (tools)

    Claude Opus 583.0%
    Source
    Inkling-Small—

    Not directly comparable

  • BenchCAD Vision2Code (no tools)

    Claude Opus 50.366
    Source
    Inkling-Small—

    Not directly comparable

  • BenchCAD Vision2Code (tools)

    Claude Opus 50.821
    Source
    Inkling-Small—

    Not directly comparable

  • GDP.pdf (no tools)

    Claude Opus 583.4%
    Source
    Inkling-Small—

    Not directly comparable

  • GDP.pdf (tools)

    Claude Opus 585.5%
    Source
    Inkling-Small—

    Not directly comparable

  • OfficeQA

    Claude Opus 578.1%
    Source
    Inkling-Small—

    Not directly comparable

  • OfficeQA Pro

    Claude Opus 566.9%
    Source
    Inkling-Small—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMMU-Pro

    Claude Opus 5—
    Inkling-Small74%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv

    Claude Opus 5—
    Inkling-Small81.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv w/o tools

    Claude Opus 5—
    Inkling-Small77.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • IFBench

    Claude Opus 5—
    Inkling-Small82.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Claude Opus 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 Opus 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 Opus 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 Opus 5 or Inkling-Small?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0175 on Claude Opus 5 and $0.0013 on Inkling-Small; repository review costs $0.325 and $0.03332; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.45 and $0.0492. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Which has the larger context window, Claude Opus 5 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 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.