Model comparison

Composer 2.5 vs Inkling

Data verified July 15, 2026

Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

Composer 2.5

Cursor

63/100

Margin

6.0pts

winning →

Inkling

Thinking Machines Lab

69/100

0 category wins1 category wins

Verified leaderboard positions: Composer 2.5 unranked; Inkling #17

Evidence parity. Composer 2.5 and Inkling share 2 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 3 results are unique to Composer 2.5; 14 to Inkling.

Updated July 15, 2026

Shared results: 2
Composer 2.5 only: 3
Inkling only: 14
Comparable categories: 1 / 8

Pick Inkling if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Composer 2.5 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 2 shared benchmark results across 2 evidence categories; 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 63. 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 agentic, where it averages 69.4 against 69.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 69.3% to 63.8%.

Inkling is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.87 input / $4.68 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.50 input / $2.50 output per 1M tokens for Composer 2.5. Composer 2.5 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 200K for Composer 2.5.

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 Composer 2.5 and Inkling
Category	Composer 2.5	Δ	Inkling
Agentic	Composer 2.569.3	Margin→ 0.1	Inkling69.4
Coding	Composer 2.5Not measured	MarginNo overlap	Inkling68.6
Knowledge	Composer 2.5Not measured	MarginNo overlap	Inkling51.7
Math	Composer 2.5Not measured	MarginNo overlap	Inkling97.1
Multimodal	Composer 2.5Not measured	MarginNo overlap	Inkling76.5
Inst. Following	Composer 2.5Not measured	MarginNo overlap	Inkling79.8

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

A · Composer 2.5B · Inkling

Terminal-Bench 2.0
Agentic
Source ↗
A 69.3%B 63.8%
Winner: Composer 2.5Δ 5.5
Terminal-Bench 2.0: Composer 2.5 scored 69.3%; Inkling scored 63.8%. Composer 2.5 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

Metric	Composer 2.5	Inkling	Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens	Composer 2.5$0.5 input / $2.5 output	Inkling$1.87 input / $4.68 output	Composer 2.5 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per second	Composer 2.5Not available	InklingNot available	A complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first token	Composer 2.5Not available	InklingNot available	A complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokens	Composer 2.5200K	Inkling1M	Inkling lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticInkling wins

4 benchmarks

Benchmark	Composer 2.5	Inkling	Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source	69.3%	63.8%	Composer 2.5 leads
BrowseCompSource	—	77.1%	Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource	—	74.1%	Not comparable
Design Arena Agentic Web DevSource	—	1258	Not comparable

Coding

6 benchmarks

Benchmark	Composer 2.5	Inkling	Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source	69.3%	63.8%	Composer 2.5 leads
SWE MultilingualSource	79.8%	—	Not comparable
cursorBench31Source	63.2%	—	Not comparable
cursorBench32Source	56.1%	—	Not comparable
SWE-bench VerifiedSource	—	77.6%	Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource	—	54.3%	Not comparable

Knowledge

4 benchmarks

Benchmark	Composer 2.5	Inkling	Result
GPQASource	—	87.9%	Not comparable
GPQA-DSource	—	87.9%	Not comparable
HLESource	—	46%	Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource	—	30%	Not comparable

Math

1 benchmarks

Benchmark	Composer 2.5	Inkling	Result
AIME26Source	—	97.1%	Not comparable

Multimodal

3 benchmarks

Benchmark	Composer 2.5	Inkling	Result
MMMU-ProSource	—	73.5%	Not comparable
CharXivSource	—	82%	Not comparable
CharXiv w/o toolsSource	—	78.1%	Not comparable

Inst. Following

1 benchmarks

Benchmark	Composer 2.5	Inkling	Result
IFBenchSource	—	79.8%	Not comparable

Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Composer 2.5 or Inkling?

Inkling is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 69 to 63. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 69.3% and 63.8%.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Composer 2.5 or Inkling?

Inkling has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 69.4 versus 69.3. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Cursor 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.