Model comparison
Command A+ vs Inkling
Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Command A+ unranked; Inkling #17
BenchAlign evidence: Command A+ estimated; Inkling not scored. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Command A+ and Inkling share 2 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 18 results are unique to Command A+; 14 to Inkling.
Updated July 15, 2026- Shared results
- 2
- Command A+ only
- 18
- Inkling only
- 14
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Inkling if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Command A+ only becomes the better choice if you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 2 shared benchmark results across 1 evidence category; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Inkling is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 69 to 43. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Inkling's sharpest advantage is in multimodal & grounded, where it averages 76.5 against 59.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is CharXiv, 52.7% to 82%.
Command A+ is also the more expensive model on tokens at $2.50 input / $10.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $1.87 input / $4.68 output per 1M tokens for Inkling. That is roughly 2.1x on output cost alone. Command A+ is the reasoning model in the pair, while Inkling 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 128K for Command A+.
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 | Command A+ | Δ | Inkling |
|---|---|---|---|
| Multimodal | Command A+59.3 | Margin→ 17.2 | Inkling76.5 |
| Agentic | Command A+Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Inkling69.4 |
| Coding | Command A+Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Inkling68.6 |
| Knowledge | Command A+Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Inkling51.7 |
| Math | Command A+Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Inkling97.1 |
| Inst. Following | Command A+Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Inkling79.8 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Command A+ | Inkling | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Command A+$2.5 input / $10 output | Inkling$1.87 input / $4.68 output | Inkling has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Command A+272 tok/s | InklingNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Command A+0.25 s | InklingNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Command A+128K | Inkling1M | Inkling lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Command A+ | Inkling | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 85% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 9.2% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 10.8% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 715 | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 63.8% | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 77.1% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 74.1% | Not comparable |
| Design Arena Agentic Web DevSource | — | 1258 | Not comparable |
Coding6 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Command A+ | Inkling | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 22.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 76.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 11.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -4.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 8.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 14.1% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | — | 87.9% | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 87.9% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 46% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | — | 30% | Not comparable |
Math1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Command A+ | Inkling | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME26Source | — | 97.1% | Not comparable |
MultimodalInkling wins5 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Command A+ or Inkling?
Inkling is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 69 to 43. The biggest single separator in this matchup is CharXiv, where the scores are 52.7% and 82%.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Command A+ or Inkling?
Inkling has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 76.5 versus 59.3. Inside this category, CharXiv is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
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.