Agentic
Like-for-like- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 51.7
- Supported · #43/152
- Inkling-Small
- 36.9
- Supported · #128/152
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 8 vs 5 public rows
- Reading
- Gemini 3.5 Flash leads · intervals overlap
Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Inkling-Small
Updated September 10, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
Gemini 3.5 Flash has the higher public score estimate, 68.14 versus 59.25, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
14 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Share or export
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.
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Gemini 3.5 Flash leads on the public coding lane, 57.5 to 43.8, with Supported evidence for both models, although the 90% intervals overlap.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Gemini 3.5 Flash leads on the public agentic lane, 51.7 to 36.9, with Supported evidence for both models, although the 90% intervals overlap.
Confidence: limited
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
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K 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
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K 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
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.
13 Gemini 3.5 Flash only
14 Shared
11 Inkling-Small only
- Shared results
- 14
- Gemini 3.5 Flash only
- 13
- Inkling-Small only
- 11
- Like-for-like categories
- 4 / 8
1 category rests on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
Coding
Like-for-like- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 57.5
- Supported · #33/151
- Inkling-Small
- 43.8
- Supported · #97/151
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 7 vs 6 public rows
- Reading
- Gemini 3.5 Flash leads · intervals overlap
Knowledge
Like-for-like- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 67.8
- Supported · #19/183
- Inkling-Small
- 56.5
- Supported · #46/183
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 4 vs 6 public rows
- Reading
- Gemini 3.5 Flash leads · intervals overlap
Multimodal
Like-for-like- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 86.9
- #6/48
- Inkling-Small
- 48.8
- #39/48
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 2 weighted rows
- Reading
- Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Instruction following
Directional only- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 86.9
- #36/123
- Inkling-Small
- 89.6
- #25/123
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 59.4
- #16/20
- Inkling-Small
- 42.7
- Unranked · 3 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 55.2
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Inkling-Small
- 76.9
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 2 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- Not ranked
- Inkling-Small
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Inkling-Small | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 51.7Supported · #43/152 | 36.9Supported · #128/152 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign lane · 8 vs 5 public rows | Gemini 3.5 Flash leads · intervals overlap |
| Coding | 57.5Supported · #33/151 | 43.8Supported · #97/151 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign lane · 7 vs 6 public rows | Gemini 3.5 Flash leads · intervals overlap |
| Knowledge | 67.8Supported · #19/183 | 56.5Supported · #46/183 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign lane · 4 vs 6 public rows | Gemini 3.5 Flash leads · intervals overlap |
| Multimodal | 86.9#6/48 | 48.8#39/48 | Like-for-likeProvisional lane · 2 vs 2 weighted rows | Gemini 3.5 Flash leads |
| Instruction following | 86.9#36/123 | 89.6#25/123 | Directional onlyProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 59.4#16/20 | 42.7Unranked · 3 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 55.2Unranked · 2 rankable rows | 76.9Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 2 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
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.
ARC-AGI-2
Reasoning
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 72.1%Inkling-Small: 40.1%Normalized gap 32.0Gemini 3.5 Flash source Inkling-Small sourceTerminal-Bench 2.0
Agentic
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 76.2%Inkling-Small: 64.7%Normalized gap 11.5Gemini 3.5 Flash source Inkling-Small sourceMMMU-Pro
Multimodal
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 83.6%Inkling-Small: 74%Normalized gap 9.6Gemini 3.5 Flash source Inkling-Small sourceHLE
Knowledge
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 40.2%Inkling-Small: 47.8%Normalized gap 7.6Gemini 3.5 Flash source Inkling-Small sourceMMLU-Pro (Vals)
Knowledge
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 89.5%Inkling-Small: 85.6%Normalized gap 3.9Gemini 3.5 Flash source Inkling-Small source
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 3.5 Flash
- $0.006
- 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 3.5 Flash
- $0.102
- Fits in one request
- Inkling-Small
- $0.03332
- Fits in one request
Inkling-Small 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 3.5 Flash
- $0.15
- Fits in one request
- Inkling-Small
- $0.0492
- Fits in one request
Inkling-Small 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 3.5 FlashInkling-Small
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Inkling-Small
1M
API model ID
Gemini 3.5 Flash
gemini-3.5-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 3.5 Flash
$0.15 per 1M cached input tokens
Google Gemini API pricingInkling-Small
$0.116 per 1M cached input tokens
Documented inputs
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Not sourced
Inkling-Small
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Not sourced
Inkling-Small
Not sourced
Provider availability
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Not sourced
Inkling-Small
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Reasoning
Inkling-Small
Hybrid
Weight access
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Proprietary
Inkling-Small
Open Weight
License
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Proprietary
Inkling-Small
Open Weight
Release date
Gemini 3.5 Flash
2026-05-19
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
- Gemini 3.5 Flash has the higher public score estimate, 68.14 versus 59.25, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.102 vs $0.03332. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.15 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 evidence38 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Gemini 3.5 Flash76.2%SourceInkling-Small64.7%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
MCP Atlas
Gemini 3.5 Flash83.6%SourceInkling-Small79.6%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
Toolathlon
Gemini 3.5 Flash56.5%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Gemini 3.5 Flash78.4%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
Finance Agent v2
Gemini 3.5 Flash57.9%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Gemini 3.5 Flash61.85%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
ResearchClawBench
Gemini 3.5 Flash18.0%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash74.2%SourceInkling-Small55.1%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
BrowseComp
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Inkling-Small77.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Inkling-Small54.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Gemini 3.5 Flash76.2%SourceInkling-Small64.7%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
SWE-bench Pro
Gemini 3.5 Flash55.1%SourceInkling-Small55.9%SourceInkling-Small leads this result
Vibe Code Bench
Gemini 3.5 Flash48.68%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
cursorBench31
Gemini 3.5 Flash49.8%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
cursorBench32
Gemini 3.5 Flash48.8%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash87.6%SourceInkling-Small85.9%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
SWE-bench (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash78.8%SourceInkling-Small82.2%SourceInkling-Small leads this result
SWE-bench Verified
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Inkling-Small80.2%SourceNot directly comparable
SciCode
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Inkling-Small48.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
MRCRv2
Gemini 3.5 Flash77.3%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
MRCR 1M
Gemini 3.5 Flash26.6%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
ARC-AGI-2
Gemini 3.5 Flash72.1%SourceInkling-Small40.1%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
CritPt
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Inkling-Small8.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
GPQA-D
Gemini 3.5 Flash92.7%SourceInkling-Small89.5%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
HLE
Gemini 3.5 Flash40.2%SourceInkling-Small47.8%SourceInkling-Small leads this result
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash92.7%SourceInkling-Small83.6%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash89.5%SourceInkling-Small85.6%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
GPQA
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Inkling-Small89.5%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Inkling-Small31.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Gemini 3.5 Flash38.966%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Gemini 3.5 Flash14.583%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
AIME26
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Inkling-Small95.5%SourceNot directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2026
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Inkling-Small90.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Multimodal
CharXiv
Gemini 3.5 Flash84.2%SourceInkling-Small81.3%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
MMMU-Pro
Gemini 3.5 Flash83.6%SourceInkling-Small74%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
Blueprint-Bench 2
Gemini 3.5 Flash33.6%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
CharXiv w/o tools
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Inkling-Small77.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Instruction following
IFBench
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Inkling-Small82.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Inkling-Small?
Gemini 3.5 Flash has the higher public score estimate, 68.14 versus 59.25, 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 3.5 Flash or Inkling-Small?
Gemini 3.5 Flash leads the public coding lane, 57.5 to 43.8, with Supported evidence for both models, although the 90% intervals overlap.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Inkling-Small?
Gemini 3.5 Flash leads the public agentic tasks lane, 51.7 to 36.9, with Supported evidence for both models, although the 90% intervals overlap.
Which costs less, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Inkling-Small?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.006 on Gemini 3.5 Flash and $0.0013 on Inkling-Small; repository review costs $0.102 and $0.03332; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.15 and $0.0492. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Which has the larger context window, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Inkling-Small?
Both models list the same context window, 1M.
Related comparisons
Last updated September 10, 2026
Watch Gemini 3.5 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.