Reasoning
Like-for-like- Claude Sonnet 4.5
- 13.6
- Inkling-Small
- 40.1
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Inkling-Small leads
Model comparison
Claude Sonnet 4.5 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.
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Inkling-Small
Inkling-Small has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
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
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
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 Sonnet 4.5 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Sonnet 4.5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
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 Sonnet 4.5 only
4 Shared
16 Inkling-Small only
- Shared results
- 4
- Claude Sonnet 4.5 only
- 7
- Inkling-Small only
- 16
- 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.
Agentic
Directional only- Claude Sonnet 4.5
- 55.4
- Inkling-Small
- 70.1
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Coding
Directional only- Claude Sonnet 4.5
- 77.2
- Inkling-Small
- 62.4
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 3 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Knowledge
Directional only- Claude Sonnet 4.5
- 83.4
- Inkling-Small
- 53.4
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Math
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 4.5
- 11.2
- Inkling-Small
- 92.9
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 4.5
- Not measured
- Inkling-Small
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 4.5
- Not measured
- Inkling-Small
- 76.6
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 4.5
- Not measured
- Inkling-Small
- 82.2
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | Inkling-Small | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning | 13.6 | 40.1 | Like-for-like1 vs 1 rows | Inkling-Small leads |
| Agentic | 55.4 | 70.1 | Directional only2 vs 2 rows | Directional only |
| Coding | 77.2 | 62.4 | Directional only1 vs 3 rows | Directional only |
| Knowledge | 83.4 | 53.4 | Directional only1 vs 2 rows | Directional only |
| Math | 11.2 | 92.9 | Not comparable2 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not measured | 76.6 | Not comparable0 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.
ARC-AGI-2
Reasoning
Claude Sonnet 4.5: 13.6%Inkling-Small: 40.1%Normalized gap 26.5Claude Sonnet 4.5 source Inkling-Small sourceTerminal-Bench 2.0
Agentic
Claude Sonnet 4.5: 50%Inkling-Small: 64.7%Normalized gap 14.7Claude Sonnet 4.5 source Inkling-Small sourceGPQA
Knowledge
Claude Sonnet 4.5: 83.4%Inkling-Small: 89.5%Normalized gap 6.1Claude Sonnet 4.5 source Inkling-Small sourceSWE-bench Verified
Coding
Claude Sonnet 4.5: 77.2%Inkling-Small: 80.2%Normalized gap 3.0Claude Sonnet 4.5 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 Sonnet 4.5
- $0.0105
- 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 Sonnet 4.5
- $0.195
- 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 Sonnet 4.5
- $0.81
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
- Inkling-Small
- $0.0492
- Fits in one request
Claude Sonnet 4.5 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Sonnet 4.5 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 Sonnet 4.5Inkling-Small
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Sonnet 4.5
200K
Inkling-Small
1M
API model ID
Claude Sonnet 4.5
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 Sonnet 4.5
Not published
Inkling-Small
$0.116 per 1M cached input tokens
Documented inputs
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Not sourced
Inkling-Small
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Not sourced
Inkling-Small
Not sourced
Provider availability
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Not sourced
Inkling-Small
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Non-Reasoning
Inkling-Small
Hybrid
Weight access
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Proprietary
Inkling-Small
Open Weight
License
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Proprietary
Inkling-Small
Open Weight
Release date
Claude Sonnet 4.5
2025-09-01
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: $0.195 vs $0.03332. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.81 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 evidence27 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Sonnet 4.550%SourceInkling-Small64.7%SourceInkling-Small leads this result
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Sonnet 4.561.4%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
VITA-Bench
Claude Sonnet 4.517.0%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Claude Sonnet 4.548.51%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
JobBench
Claude Sonnet 4.527.7%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
BrowseComp
Claude Sonnet 4.5—Inkling-Small77.4%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Claude Sonnet 4.5—Inkling-Small79.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
Claude Sonnet 4.5—Inkling-Small54.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Claude Sonnet 4.577.2%SourceInkling-Small80.2%SourceInkling-Small leads this result
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Sonnet 4.5—Inkling-Small55.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Sonnet 4.5—Inkling-Small64.7%SourceNot directly comparable
SciCode
Claude Sonnet 4.5—Inkling-Small48.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Knowledge
GPQA
Claude Sonnet 4.583.4%SourceInkling-Small89.5%SourceInkling-Small leads this result
GPQA-D
Claude Sonnet 4.5—Inkling-Small89.5%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE
Claude Sonnet 4.5—Inkling-Small47.8%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Claude Sonnet 4.5—Inkling-Small31.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
AIME 2025
Claude Sonnet 4.587%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Claude Sonnet 4.513.495%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Claude Sonnet 4.54.167%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
AIME26
Claude Sonnet 4.5—Inkling-Small95.5%SourceNot directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2026
Claude Sonnet 4.5—Inkling-Small90.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Multimodal
Instruction following
IFBench
Claude Sonnet 4.5—Inkling-Small82.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Claude Sonnet 4.5 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 Sonnet 4.5 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 Sonnet 4.5 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 Sonnet 4.5 or Inkling-Small?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0105 on Claude Sonnet 4.5 and $0.0013 on Inkling-Small; repository review costs $0.195 and $0.03332; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.81 and $0.0492. Claude Sonnet 4.5 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Sonnet 4.5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Inkling-Small?
Inkling-Small has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 200K.
Related comparisons
Last updated July 30, 2026
Watch Claude Sonnet 4.5 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.