Skip to main content

Model comparison

Exaone 4.0 32B vs Inkling

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 9 shared benchmark results across 3 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

LG AI Research
40.26/100
Margin
31.7pts
winning →
Thinking Machines Lab
72/100
1 category wins0 category wins

Verified leaderboard positions: Exaone 4.0 32B unranked; Inkling #17

BenchAlign evidence: Exaone 4.0 32B estimated; Inkling not scored. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Exaone 4.0 32B and Inkling share 9 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 5 results are unique to Exaone 4.0 32B; 23 to Inkling.

Updated July 16, 2026
Shared results
9
Exaone 4.0 32B only
5
Inkling only
23
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick Inkling if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Exaone 4.0 32B only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 9 shared benchmark results across 3 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, 72 to 51. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Exaone 4.0 32B 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 Exaone 4.0 32B.

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 Exaone 4.0 32B and Inkling
CategoryExaone 4.0 32BΔInkling
KnowledgeExaone 4.0 32B81.8Margin 30.1Inkling51.7
AgenticExaone 4.0 32BNot measuredMarginNo overlapInkling69.4
CodingExaone 4.0 32BNot measuredMarginNo overlapInkling68.6
MathExaone 4.0 32BNot measuredMarginNo overlapInkling97.1
MultimodalExaone 4.0 32BNot measuredMarginNo overlapInkling76.5
Inst. FollowingExaone 4.0 32BNot measuredMarginNo overlapInkling79.8

Operational comparison

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

MetricExaone 4.0 32BInklingComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensExaone 4.0 32BNot availableInkling$1.87 input / $4.68 outputA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondExaone 4.0 32BNot availableInklingNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenExaone 4.0 32BNot availableInklingNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensExaone 4.0 32B128KInkling1MInkling lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkExaone 4.0 32BInklingResult
τ²-bench resultsSource 4.1%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 1258Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 32.3%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 36.9%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 1239Not comparable
AA BriefcaseSource 836Not comparable
AA Tau3 BankingSource 23.7%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkExaone 4.0 32BInklingResult
Terminal-Bench HardSource 1.5%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 25.2%46.1%Inkling leads
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 77.6%Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 54.3%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 63.8%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 52.1%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkExaone 4.0 32BInklingResult
AA-LCRSource 8.0%63.3%Inkling leads
CritPtSource 0.0%5.4%Inkling leads
KnowledgeExaone 4.0 32B wins
BenchmarkExaone 4.0 32BInklingResult
MMLU-ProSource 81.8%Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 6.0%40.7%Inkling leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 62.8%87.2%Inkling leads
AA-HLESource 4.9%29.7%Inkling leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -62.3%2.1%Inkling leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 10.4%40.0%Inkling leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 81.0%63.1%Inkling leads
GPQASource 87.9%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource 87.9%Not comparable
HLESource 46%Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource 30%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkExaone 4.0 32BInklingResult
AIME 2025Source 85.3%Not comparable
AIME26Source 97.1%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkExaone 4.0 32BInklingResult
MMMU-ProSource 73.5%Not comparable
CharXivSource 82%Not comparable
CharXiv w/o toolsSource 78.1%Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 73.5%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkExaone 4.0 32BInklingResult
AA-IFBenchSource 33.5%Not comparable
IFBenchSource 79.8%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Exaone 4.0 32B or Inkling?

Inkling is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 72 to 51.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Exaone 4.0 32B or Inkling?

Exaone 4.0 32B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 81.8 versus 51.7. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 16, 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.