Agentic
Not comparable- Gemini 2.5 Flash
- Not measured
- Inkling-Small
- 70.1
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Model comparison
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Inkling-Small
Updated July 30, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. Use the documented cost, context, and runtime rows instead.
0 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
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.
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
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash 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
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
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.
2 Gemini 2.5 Flash only
20 Inkling-Small only
- Shared results
- 0
- Gemini 2.5 Flash only
- 2
- Inkling-Small only
- 20
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.
Coding
Not comparable- Gemini 2.5 Flash
- Not measured
- Inkling-Small
- 62.4
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 3 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Gemini 2.5 Flash
- Not measured
- Inkling-Small
- 40.1
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Gemini 2.5 Flash
- Not measured
- Inkling-Small
- 53.4
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Gemini 2.5 Flash
- 4.7
- Inkling-Small
- 92.9
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Gemini 2.5 Flash
- Not measured
- Inkling-Small
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Gemini 2.5 Flash
- Not measured
- Inkling-Small
- 76.6
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Gemini 2.5 Flash
- Not measured
- Inkling-Small
- 82.2
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Inkling-Small | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Not measured | 70.1 | Not comparable0 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | Not measured | 62.4 | Not comparable0 vs 3 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not measured | 40.1 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not measured | 53.4 | Not comparable0 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 4.7 | 92.9 | Not comparable2 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not measured | 76.6 | Not comparable0 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | 82.2 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
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.
A shared-evidence shape is not available.
BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.
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
- Gemini 2.5 Flash
- $0.00155
- 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
- Gemini 2.5 Flash
- $0.0225
- Fits in one request
- Inkling-Small
- $0.03332
- Fits in one request
Gemini 2.5 Flash has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Gemini 2.5 Flash
- $0.037
- Fits in one request
- Inkling-Small
- $0.0492
- Fits in one request
Gemini 2.5 Flash 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.
SpecificationGemini 2.5 FlashInkling-Small
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Inkling-Small
1M
API model ID
Gemini 2.5 Flash
gemini-2.5-flash
Google Gemini API pricingInkling-Small
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Gemini 2.5 Flash
$0.03 per 1M cached input tokens
Google Gemini API pricingInkling-Small
$0.116 per 1M cached input tokens
Documented inputs
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Not sourced
Inkling-Small
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Not sourced
Inkling-Small
Not sourced
Provider availability
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Not sourced
Inkling-Small
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Non-Reasoning
Inkling-Small
Hybrid
Weight access
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Proprietary
Inkling-Small
Open Weight
License
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Proprietary
Inkling-Small
Open Weight
Release date
Gemini 2.5 Flash
2025-06-17
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
- The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.0225 vs $0.03332. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.037 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 evidence22 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Gemini 2.5 Flash—Inkling-Small64.7%SourceNot directly comparable
BrowseComp
Gemini 2.5 Flash—Inkling-Small77.4%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Gemini 2.5 Flash—Inkling-Small79.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
Gemini 2.5 Flash—Inkling-Small54.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Gemini 2.5 Flash—Inkling-Small80.2%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Gemini 2.5 Flash—Inkling-Small55.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Gemini 2.5 Flash—Inkling-Small64.7%SourceNot directly comparable
SciCode
Gemini 2.5 Flash—Inkling-Small48.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Knowledge
Math
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Gemini 2.5 Flash4.844%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Gemini 2.5 Flash4.167%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
AIME26
Gemini 2.5 Flash—Inkling-Small95.5%SourceNot directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2026
Gemini 2.5 Flash—Inkling-Small90.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Multimodal
Instruction following
IFBench
Gemini 2.5 Flash—Inkling-Small82.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Gemini 2.5 Flash or Inkling-Small?
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, Gemini 2.5 Flash or Inkling-Small?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemini 2.5 Flash or Inkling-Small?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.
Which costs less, Gemini 2.5 Flash or Inkling-Small?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.00155 on Gemini 2.5 Flash and $0.0013 on Inkling-Small; repository review costs $0.0225 and $0.03332; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.037 and $0.0492. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Which has the larger context window, Gemini 2.5 Flash or Inkling-Small?
Both models list the same context window, 1M.
Related comparisons
Last updated July 30, 2026
Watch Gemini 2.5 Flash 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.