Agentic
Like-for-like- Claude Sonnet 5
- 65.8
- Supported · #11/152
- Inkling-Small
- 36.9
- Supported · #128/152
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 7 vs 5 public rows
- Reading
- Claude Sonnet 5 leads
Claude Sonnet 5 vs Inkling-Small
Updated September 10, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
Claude Sonnet 5 has the higher public score, 69.84 versus 59.25, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
14 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
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.
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Claude Sonnet 5
Claude Sonnet 5 leads on the public coding lane, 64 to 43.8, with Supported evidence for both models and non-overlapping 90% intervals.
Confidence: stronger
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Claude Sonnet 5
Claude Sonnet 5 leads on the public agentic lane, 65.8 to 36.9, with Supported evidence for both models and non-overlapping 90% intervals.
Confidence: stronger
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
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
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
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.
12 Claude Sonnet 5 only
14 Shared
11 Inkling-Small only
- Shared results
- 14
- Claude Sonnet 5 only
- 12
- Inkling-Small only
- 11
- Like-for-like categories
- 3 / 8
1 category rests on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Category results, on a stated basis
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.
Coding
Like-for-like- Claude Sonnet 5
- 64.0
- Supported · #13/151
- Inkling-Small
- 43.8
- Supported · #97/151
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 11 vs 6 public rows
- Reading
- Claude Sonnet 5 leads
Knowledge
Like-for-like- Claude Sonnet 5
- 66.6
- Supported · #20/183
- Inkling-Small
- 56.5
- Supported · #46/183
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 6 vs 6 public rows
- Reading
- Claude Sonnet 5 leads · intervals overlap
Multimodal
Directional only- Claude Sonnet 5
- 77.5
- #13/48
- Inkling-Small
- 48.8
- #39/48
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 2 weighted rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 5
- 77.4
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Inkling-Small
- 42.7
- Unranked · 3 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 5
- Not ranked
- Inkling-Small
- 76.9
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 5
- Not ranked
- Inkling-Small
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 5
- Not ranked
- Inkling-Small
- 89.6
- #25/123
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Sonnet 5 | Inkling-Small | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 65.8Supported · #11/152 | 36.9Supported · #128/152 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign lane · 7 vs 5 public rows | Claude Sonnet 5 leads |
| Coding | 64.0Supported · #13/151 | 43.8Supported · #97/151 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign lane · 11 vs 6 public rows | Claude Sonnet 5 leads |
| Knowledge | 66.6Supported · #20/183 | 56.5Supported · #46/183 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign lane · 6 vs 6 public rows | Claude Sonnet 5 leads · intervals overlap |
| Multimodal | 77.5#13/48 | 48.8#39/48 | Directional onlyProvisional lane · 1 vs 2 weighted rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 77.4Unranked · 2 rankable rows | 42.7Unranked · 3 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | 76.9Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 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.
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.
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Agentic
Claude Sonnet 5: 80.4%Inkling-Small: 64.7%Normalized gap 15.7Claude Sonnet 5 source Inkling-Small sourceHLE w/o tools
Knowledge
Claude Sonnet 5: 43.2%Inkling-Small: 31.6%Normalized gap 11.6Claude Sonnet 5 source Inkling-Small sourceHLE
Knowledge
Claude Sonnet 5: 57.4%Inkling-Small: 47.8%Normalized gap 9.6Claude Sonnet 5 source Inkling-Small sourceSWE-bench Pro
Coding
Claude Sonnet 5: 63.2%Inkling-Small: 55.9%Normalized gap 7.3Claude Sonnet 5 source Inkling-Small sourceBrowseComp
Agentic
Claude Sonnet 5: 84.7%Inkling-Small: 77.4%Normalized gap 7.3Claude Sonnet 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 5
- $0.007
- 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 5
- $0.13
- 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 5
- $0.18
- 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.
SpecificationClaude Sonnet 5Inkling-Small
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Sonnet 5
Inkling-Small
1M
API model ID
Claude Sonnet 5
claude-sonnet-5
Anthropic model overviewInkling-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 5
$0.2 per 1M cached input tokens
Claude API pricingInkling-Small
$0.116 per 1M cached input tokens
Documented inputs
Claude Sonnet 5
text, image
Anthropic model overviewInkling-Small
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Claude Sonnet 5
Inkling-Small
Not sourced
Provider availability
Claude Sonnet 5
Generally Available · Claude API
Anthropic model overviewInkling-Small
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Claude Sonnet 5
Reasoning
Inkling-Small
Hybrid
Weight access
Claude Sonnet 5
Proprietary
Inkling-Small
Open Weight
License
Claude Sonnet 5
Proprietary
Inkling-Small
Open Weight
Release date
Claude Sonnet 5
2026-06-30
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
- Claude Sonnet 5 has the higher public score, 69.84 versus 59.25, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.13 vs $0.03332. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.18 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 evidence37 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 3.0
Claude Sonnet 514.6%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Sonnet 580.4%SourceInkling-Small64.7%SourceClaude Sonnet 5 leads this result
BrowseComp
Claude Sonnet 584.7%SourceInkling-Small77.4%SourceClaude Sonnet 5 leads this result
HLE w/ tools
Claude Sonnet 557.4%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Sonnet 581.2%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Claude Sonnet 574.5%SourceInkling-Small55.1%SourceClaude Sonnet 5 leads this result
ApprenticeBench
Claude Sonnet 516%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Claude Sonnet 5—Inkling-Small79.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
Claude Sonnet 5—Inkling-Small54.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Claude Sonnet 585.2%SourceInkling-Small80.2%SourceClaude Sonnet 5 leads this result
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Sonnet 563.2%SourceInkling-Small55.9%SourceClaude Sonnet 5 leads this result
SWE Multilingual
Claude Sonnet 578.3%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
SWE Multimodal
Claude Sonnet 528.1%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Sonnet 580.4%SourceInkling-Small64.7%SourceClaude Sonnet 5 leads this result
FrontierCode 1.1 Main
Claude Sonnet 542.7%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
cursorBench32
Claude Sonnet 561.5%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
VulcanBench CII v1
Claude Sonnet 589.2%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Claude Sonnet 582.4%SourceInkling-Small85.9%SourceInkling-Small leads this result
SWE-bench (Vals)
Claude Sonnet 579.6%SourceInkling-Small82.2%SourceInkling-Small leads this result
cursorBench40
Claude Sonnet 534.1%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
SciCode
Claude Sonnet 5—Inkling-Small48.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Knowledge
HLE
Claude Sonnet 557.4%SourceInkling-Small47.8%SourceClaude Sonnet 5 leads this result
HLE w/o tools
Claude Sonnet 543.2%SourceInkling-Small31.6%SourceClaude Sonnet 5 leads this result
HLE-Verified
Claude Sonnet 531.0%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
LABBench2
Claude Sonnet 580.1%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Claude Sonnet 588.9%SourceInkling-Small83.6%SourceClaude Sonnet 5 leads this result
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Claude Sonnet 587.5%SourceInkling-Small85.6%SourceClaude Sonnet 5 leads this result
GPQA
Claude Sonnet 5—Inkling-Small89.5%SourceNot directly comparable
GPQA-D
Claude Sonnet 5—Inkling-Small89.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
Multimodal
Instruction following
IFBench
Claude Sonnet 5—Inkling-Small82.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Claude Sonnet 5 or Inkling-Small?
Claude Sonnet 5 has the higher public score, 69.84 versus 59.25, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap. That is the clearest overall quality signal in the current public data.
Which is better for coding, Claude Sonnet 5 or Inkling-Small?
Claude Sonnet 5 leads the public coding lane, 64 to 43.8, with Supported evidence for both models and non-overlapping 90% intervals.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Sonnet 5 or Inkling-Small?
Claude Sonnet 5 leads the public agentic tasks lane, 65.8 to 36.9, with Supported evidence for both models and non-overlapping 90% intervals.
Which costs less, Claude Sonnet 5 or Inkling-Small?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.007 on Claude Sonnet 5 and $0.0013 on Inkling-Small; repository review costs $0.13 and $0.03332; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.18 and $0.0492. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Which has the larger context window, Claude Sonnet 5 or Inkling-Small?
Both models list the same context window, 1M.
Related comparisons
Last updated September 10, 2026
Watch Claude Sonnet 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.