Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs Inkling

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 5 shared benchmark results across 4 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

65/100
Margin
4.0pts
winning →
Inkling
Thinking Machines Lab
69/100
3 category wins2 category wins

Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Sonnet 4.6 #13; Inkling #17

BenchAlign evidence: Claude Sonnet 4.6 supported; Inkling not scored. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Inkling share 5 comparable benchmark results. 5 of 8 categories are comparable. 29 results are unique to Claude Sonnet 4.6; 11 to Inkling.

Updated July 15, 2026
Shared results
5
Claude Sonnet 4.6 only
29
Inkling only
11
Comparable categories
5 / 8

Pick Claude Sonnet 4.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Inkling only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 5 shared benchmark results across 4 evidence categories; 5 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Claude Sonnet 4.6 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 76 to 69. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Claude Sonnet 4.6's sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 66.2 against 51.7. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 59.1% to 63.8%. Inkling does hit back in mathematics, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

Claude Sonnet 4.6 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $3.00 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $1.87 input / $4.68 output per 1M tokens for Inkling. That is roughly 3.2x on output cost alone. Inkling is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude Sonnet 4.6 is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Inkling gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for Claude Sonnet 4.6.

Category breakdown

Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.

Category scores and score margins for Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Inkling
CategoryClaude Sonnet 4.6ΔInkling
MathClaude Sonnet 4.626.4Margin→ 70.7Inkling97.1
KnowledgeClaude Sonnet 4.666.2Margin← 14.5Inkling51.7
AgenticClaude Sonnet 4.665.2Margin→ 4.2Inkling69.4
MultimodalClaude Sonnet 4.677.4Margin← 0.9Inkling76.5
CodingClaude Sonnet 4.669.1Margin← 0.5Inkling68.6
Inst. FollowingClaude Sonnet 4.6Not measuredMarginNo overlapInkling79.8

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Claude Sonnet 4.6B · Inkling

  1. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 59.1%B 63.8%
    Winner: InklingΔ 4.7
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 59.1%; Inkling scored 63.8%. Inkling wins this benchmark.

  2. CharXiv

    Multimodal
    Source ↗
    A 77.4%B 82%
    Winner: InklingΔ 4.6
    CharXiv: Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 77.4%; Inkling scored 82%. Inkling wins this benchmark.

  3. HLE

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 49%B 46%
    Winner: Claude Sonnet 4.6Δ 3
    HLE: Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 49%; Inkling scored 46%. Claude Sonnet 4.6 wins this benchmark.

  4. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 79.6%B 77.6%
    Winner: Claude Sonnet 4.6Δ 2
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 79.6%; Inkling scored 77.6%. Claude Sonnet 4.6 wins this benchmark.

  5. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 89.9%B 87.9%
    Winner: Claude Sonnet 4.6Δ 2
    GPQA: Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 89.9%; Inkling scored 87.9%. Claude Sonnet 4.6 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricClaude Sonnet 4.6InklingComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Sonnet 4.6$3 input / $15 outputInkling$1.87 input / $4.68 outputInkling has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Sonnet 4.644 tok/sInklingNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Sonnet 4.61.48 sInklingNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Sonnet 4.6200KInkling1MInkling lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticInkling wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6InklingResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 59.1%63.8%Inkling leads
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 72.1%—Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource 67.8%—Not comparable
CyberGymSource 65.2%—Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 79.5%—Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 62.92%—Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source 8.3%—Not comparable
JobBenchSource 36.9%—Not comparable
BrowseCompSource —77.1%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource —74.1%Not comparable
Design Arena Agentic Web DevSource —1258Not comparable
CodingClaude Sonnet 4.6 wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6InklingResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 79.6%77.6%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
SWE-RebenchSource 60.7%—Not comparable
React Native EvalsSource 80.6%—Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource 51.48%—Not comparable
cursorBench31Source 48.8%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench HardSource 46.2%—Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 46.9%—Not comparable
FrontierCodeSource 24.3%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource —54.3%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —63.8%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6InklingResult
AA-LCRSource 57.7%—Not comparable
CritPtSource 0.9%—Not comparable
KnowledgeClaude Sonnet 4.6 wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6InklingResult
GPQASource 89.9%87.9%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
SuperGPQASource 95%—Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource 79.2%—Not comparable
HLESource 49%46%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 35.9%—Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 79.9%—Not comparable
AA-HLESource 13.2%—Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -2.9%—Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 38.0%—Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 65.9%—Not comparable
GPQA-DSource —87.9%Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource —30%Not comparable
MathInkling wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6InklingResult
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 32.400%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 8.300%—Not comparable
AIME26Source —97.1%Not comparable
MultimodalClaude Sonnet 4.6 wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6InklingResult
CharXivSource 77.4%82%Inkling leads
AA-MMMU-ProSource 70.6%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1319—Not comparable
MMMU-ProSource —73.5%Not comparable
CharXiv w/o toolsSource —78.1%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6InklingResult
AA-IFBenchSource 41.2%—Not comparable
IFBenchSource —79.8%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (6)

Which is better, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Inkling?

Claude Sonnet 4.6 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 76 to 69. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 59.1% and 63.8%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Inkling?

Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 66.2 versus 51.7. Inside this category, HLE is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Inkling?

Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 69.1 versus 68.6. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Inkling?

Inkling has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 97.1 versus 26.4. Claude Sonnet 4.6 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Inkling?

Inkling has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 69.4 versus 65.2. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Inkling?

Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 77.4 versus 76.5. Inside this category, CharXiv is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 15, 2026

The AI models change fast. We track them for you.

A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.

Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.