Knowledge
Like-for-like- Gemini 2.5 Pro
- 27.4
- Inkling
- 51.6
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Inkling leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Inkling
Updated August 29, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
Inkling has the higher public score estimate, 67.02 versus 56.87, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
3 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
Inkling 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 Pro
Gemini 2.5 Pro 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 Pro
Gemini 2.5 Pro 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
The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.
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.
4 Gemini 2.5 Pro only
3 Shared
12 Inkling only
- Shared results
- 3
- Gemini 2.5 Pro only
- 4
- Inkling only
- 12
- Like-for-like categories
- 1 / 8
1 category uses different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
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
Directional only- Gemini 2.5 Pro
- 63.8
- Inkling
- 68.6
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Agentic
Not comparable- Gemini 2.5 Pro
- Not measured
- Inkling
- 69.4
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Gemini 2.5 Pro
- Not measured
- Inkling
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Gemini 2.5 Pro
- 11.6
- Inkling
- 97.1
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Gemini 2.5 Pro
- Not measured
- Inkling
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Gemini 2.5 Pro
- Not measured
- Inkling
- 76.5
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Gemini 2.5 Pro
- Not measured
- Inkling
- 79.8
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Inkling | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | 27.4 | 51.6 | Like-for-like2 vs 2 rows | Inkling leads |
| Coding | 63.8 | 68.6 | Directional only1 vs 2 rows | Directional only |
| Agentic | Not measured | 69.4 | Not comparable0 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 11.6 | 97.1 | Not comparable2 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not measured | 76.5 | Not comparable0 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | 79.8 | 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.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
HLE
Knowledge
SWE-bench Verified
Coding
GPQA
Knowledge
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 Pro
- $0.00625
- Fits in one request
- Inkling
- $0.00421
- Fits in one request
Inkling has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Gemini 2.5 Pro
- $0.0925
- Fits in one request
- Inkling
- $0.10754
- Fits in one request
Gemini 2.5 Pro 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 Pro
- $0.15
- Fits in one request
- Inkling
- $0.159
- Fits in one request
Gemini 2.5 Pro 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 ProInkling
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Inkling
1M
API model ID
Gemini 2.5 Pro
gemini-2.5-pro
Google Gemini API pricingInkling
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 Pro
$0.125 per 1M cached input tokens
Google Gemini API pricingInkling
$0.374 per 1M cached input tokens
Documented inputs
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Not sourced
Inkling
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Not sourced
Inkling
Not sourced
Provider availability
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Not sourced
Inkling
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Non-Reasoning
Inkling
Hybrid
Weight access
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Proprietary
Inkling
Open Weight
License
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Proprietary
Inkling
Open Weight
Release date
Gemini 2.5 Pro
2025-03-01
Inkling
2026-07-15
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
- Inkling has the higher public score estimate, 67.02 versus 56.87, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.0925 vs $0.10754. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.15 vs $0.159.
- 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 evidence19 rows
Agentic
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Gemini 2.5 Pro63.8%SourceInkling77.6%SourceInkling leads this result
Vibe Code Bench
Gemini 2.5 Pro0.40%SourceInkling—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Gemini 2.5 Pro—Inkling54.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Gemini 2.5 Pro—Inkling63.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
Math
Multimodal
Instruction following
IFBench
Gemini 2.5 Pro—Inkling79.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Gemini 2.5 Pro or Inkling?
Inkling has the higher public score estimate, 67.02 versus 56.87, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
Which is better for coding, Gemini 2.5 Pro or Inkling?
The current coding averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemini 2.5 Pro or Inkling?
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 Pro or Inkling?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.00625 on Gemini 2.5 Pro and $0.00421 on Inkling; repository review costs $0.0925 and $0.10754; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.15 and $0.159. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Which has the larger context window, Gemini 2.5 Pro or Inkling?
Both models list the same context window, 1M.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 29, 2026
Watch Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Inkling
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.