Skip to main content

Model comparison

Composer 2 vs Inkling

Data verified

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

61/100
Margin
8.0pts
winning →
Thinking Machines Lab
69/100
0 category wins2 category wins

Verified leaderboard positions: Composer 2 unranked; Inkling #17

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

Updated July 15, 2026
Shared results
2
Composer 2 only
3
Inkling only
14
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Pick Inkling if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Composer 2 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; 2 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 61. 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 coding, where it averages 68.6 against 58. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 61.7% 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. Composer 2 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.

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 and Inkling
CategoryComposer 2ΔInkling
CodingComposer 258.0Margin 10.6Inkling68.6
AgenticComposer 261.7Margin 7.7Inkling69.4
KnowledgeComposer 2Not measuredMarginNo overlapInkling51.7
MathComposer 2Not measuredMarginNo overlapInkling97.1
MultimodalComposer 2Not measuredMarginNo overlapInkling76.5
Inst. FollowingComposer 2Not measuredMarginNo overlapInkling79.8

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Composer 2B · Inkling
  1. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 61.7%B 63.8%
    Winner: InklingΔ 2.1
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Composer 2 scored 61.7%; Inkling scored 63.8%. Inkling wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricComposer 2InklingComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensComposer 2$0.5 input / $2.5 outputInkling$1.87 input / $4.68 outputComposer 2 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondComposer 2Not availableInklingNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenComposer 2Not availableInklingNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensComposer 2200KInkling1MInkling lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticInkling wins
BenchmarkComposer 2InklingResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 61.7%63.8%Inkling leads
BrowseCompSource 77.1%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource 74.1%Not comparable
Design Arena Agentic Web DevSource 1258Not comparable
CodingInkling wins
BenchmarkComposer 2InklingResult
SWE MultilingualSource 73.7%Not comparable
SWE-RebenchSource 58%Not comparable
React Native EvalsSource 96.1%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 61.7%63.8%Inkling leads
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 77.6%Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 54.3%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkComposer 2InklingResult
GPQASource 87.9%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource 87.9%Not comparable
HLESource 46%Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource 30%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkComposer 2InklingResult
AIME26Source 97.1%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkComposer 2InklingResult
MMMU-ProSource 73.5%Not comparable
CharXivSource 82%Not comparable
CharXiv w/o toolsSource 78.1%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkComposer 2InklingResult
IFBenchSource 79.8%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, Composer 2 or Inkling?

Inkling is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 69 to 61. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 61.7% and 63.8%.

Which is better for coding, Composer 2 or Inkling?

Inkling has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 68.6 versus 58. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Composer 2 or Inkling?

Inkling has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 69.4 versus 61.7. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

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.