Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Inkling-Small

Updated October 29, 2026. Rank says Gemini 3.5 Flash is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Decision reading

Gemini 3.5 Flash has the higher public score estimate, 61.4 versus 49.5, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner. 17 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Model A

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Google

61.4/100

Supported · Public rank #49

90% interval 52.6–70.2

Model B

Inkling-Small

Thinking Machines Lab

49.5/100

Supported · Public rank #96

90% interval 32.4–66.6

Shared results: 17
Gemini 3.5 Flash only: 14
Inkling-Small only: 11
Like-for-like categories: 4 / 8

Supported: Gemini 3.5 Flash and Inkling-SmallHow the comparison works

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 has the higher public coding point estimate, 50.3 to 36.9, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Gemini 3.5 Flash has the higher public agentic point estimate, 51.9 to 36.1, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
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

Which one for a specific job

Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.

Pick the job you would use them for

The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.

50.3Gemini 3.5 Flash36.9Inkling-Small

Like-for-like · BenchAlign v5.8

Gemini 3.5 Flash has the higher coding point estimate. Conditional score ranges do not establish rank confidence.

Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.

Open the coding leaderboard Shortlist models for this job

Same basis rules as the category table below

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-2Reasoning
Normalized gap 32.0
Gemini 3.5 Flash:72.1%
Inkling-Small:40.1%
Gemini 3.5 Flash source Inkling-Small source
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Math
Normalized gap 16.5
Gemini 3.5 Flash:62.807%
Inkling-Small:46.316%
Shared source
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Math
Normalized gap 9.8
Gemini 3.5 Flash:26.829%
Inkling-Small:17.073%
Shared source
MMMU-ProMultimodal
Normalized gap 9.6
Gemini 3.5 Flash:83.6%
Inkling-Small:74%
Gemini 3.5 Flash source Inkling-Small source
HLEKnowledge
Normalized gap 7.6
Gemini 3.5 Flash:40.2%
Inkling-Small:47.8%
Gemini 3.5 Flash source Inkling-Small source

Bars run 0–100 on each benchmark’s normalized display scale

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 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.

Agentic

Like-for-like

Gemini 3.5 Flash: 51.9; Supported · #50/135
Inkling-Small: 36.1; Supported · #86/135
Basis: BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 9 vs 5 public rows
Reading: Gemini 3.5 Flash leads · intervals overlap

Coding

Like-for-like

Gemini 3.5 Flash: 50.3; Supported · #45/156
Inkling-Small: 36.9; Supported · #77/156
Basis: BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 7 vs 6 public rows
Reading: Gemini 3.5 Flash leads · intervals overlap

Multimodal

Like-for-like

Gemini 3.5 Flash: 87.4; #10/58
Inkling-Small: 67.3; #41/58
Basis: Provisional lane · 2 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading: Gemini 3.5 Flash leads

Knowledge

Like-for-like

Gemini 3.5 Flash: 65.1; Supported · #30/179
Inkling-Small: 50.6; Supported · #75/179
Basis: BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 4 vs 6 public rows
Reading: Gemini 3.5 Flash leads · intervals overlap

Instruction following

Directional only

Gemini 3.5 Flash: 87.7; #39/157
Inkling-Small: 93.3; #10/157
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading: Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable

Gemini 3.5 Flash: 70.9; #15/26
Inkling-Small: 55.0; Unranked · 4 rankable rows
Basis: Provisional lane · 2 vs 1 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

Math

Not comparable

Gemini 3.5 Flash: 67.1; Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Inkling-Small: 69.8; #5/12
Basis: Provisional lane · 2 vs 4 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Category scores with the server-provided evidence basis for Gemini 3.5 Flash and Inkling-Small
Category	Gemini 3.5 Flash	Inkling-Small	Basis	Reading
Agentic	51.9Supported · #50/135	36.1Supported · #86/135	Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 9 vs 5 public rows	Gemini 3.5 Flash leads · intervals overlap
Coding	50.3Supported · #45/156	36.9Supported · #77/156	Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 7 vs 6 public rows	Gemini 3.5 Flash leads · intervals overlap
Multimodal	87.4#10/58	67.3#41/58	Like-for-likeProvisional lane · 2 vs 2 weighted rows	Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Knowledge	65.1Supported · #30/179	50.6Supported · #75/179	Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 4 vs 6 public rows	Gemini 3.5 Flash leads · intervals overlap
Instruction following	87.7#39/157	93.3#10/157	Directional onlyProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows	Directional only
Reasoning	70.9#15/26	55.0Unranked · 4 rankable rows	Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 1 weighted rows	Not comparable
Multilingual	Not ranked	Not ranked	Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows	Not comparable
Math	67.1Unranked · 2 rankable rows	69.8#5/12	Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 4 weighted rows	Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology

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.

Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished

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

Google Gemini API pricing

Inkling-Small

API model ID

Gemini 3.5 Flash

gemini-3.5-flash

Google Gemini API pricing

Inkling-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 pricing

Inkling-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, 61.4 versus 49.5, 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.

Questions

Which is better, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Inkling-Small?

Gemini 3.5 Flash has the higher public score estimate, 61.4 versus 49.5, 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 has the higher public coding point estimate, 50.3 to 36.9, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Inkling-Small?

Gemini 3.5 Flash has the higher public agentic tasks point estimate, 51.9 to 36.1, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.

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.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence42 rows

Agentic

Terminal-Bench 2.1
Gemini 3.5 Flash76.2%
Source
Inkling-Small64.7%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
MCP Atlas
Gemini 3.5 Flash83.6%
Source
Inkling-Small79.6%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
Toolathlon
Gemini 3.5 Flash56.5%
Source
Inkling-Small—
Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Gemini 3.5 Flash78.4%
Source
Inkling-Small—
Not directly comparable
Finance Agent v2
Gemini 3.5 Flash57.9%
Source
Inkling-Small—
Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Gemini 3.5 Flash61.85%
Source
Inkling-Small—
Not directly comparable
ResearchClawBench
Gemini 3.5 Flash18.0%
Source
Inkling-Small—
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash74.2%
Source
Inkling-Small55.1%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
MazeBench
Gemini 3.5 Flash0%
Source
Inkling-Small—
Not directly comparable
BrowseComp
Gemini 3.5 Flash—
Inkling-Small77.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
Gemini 3.5 Flash—
Inkling-Small54.4%
Source
Not directly comparable

Coding

Terminal-Bench 2.1
Gemini 3.5 Flash76.2%
Source
Inkling-Small64.7%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
SWE-bench Pro
Gemini 3.5 Flash55.1%
Source
Inkling-Small55.9%
Source
Inkling-Small leads this result
Vibe Code Bench
Gemini 3.5 Flash48.68%
Source
Inkling-Small—
Not directly comparable
cursorBench31
Gemini 3.5 Flash49.8%
Source
Inkling-Small—
Not directly comparable
CursorBench 3.2
Gemini 3.5 Flash48.8%
Source
Inkling-Small—
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash87.6%
Source
Inkling-Small85.9%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
SWE-bench (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash78.8%
Source
Inkling-Small82.2%
Source
Inkling-Small leads this result
SWE-bench Verified
Gemini 3.5 Flash—
Inkling-Small80.2%
Source
Not directly comparable
SciCode
Gemini 3.5 Flash—
Inkling-Small48.7%
Source
Not directly comparable

Reasoning

MRCRv2
Gemini 3.5 Flash77.3%
Source
Inkling-Small—
Not directly comparable
MRCR 1M
Gemini 3.5 Flash26.6%
Source
Inkling-Small—
Not directly comparable
ARC-AGI-2
Gemini 3.5 Flash72.1%
Source
Inkling-Small40.1%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
ARC-AGI-1
Gemini 3.5 Flash92.50%
Source
Inkling-Small84.00%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
CritPt
Gemini 3.5 Flash—
Inkling-Small8.3%
Source
Not directly comparable

Multimodal

ExtractBench (LlamaIndex)
Gemini 3.5 Flash79.84%
Source
Inkling-Small—
Not directly comparable
ParseBench
Gemini 3.5 Flash73.36%
Source
Inkling-Small—
Not directly comparable
CharXiv
Gemini 3.5 Flash84.2%
Source
Inkling-Small81.3%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
MMMU-Pro
Gemini 3.5 Flash83.6%
Source
Inkling-Small74%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
Blueprint-Bench 2
Gemini 3.5 Flash33.6%
Source
Inkling-Small—
Not directly comparable
CharXiv w/o tools
Gemini 3.5 Flash—
Inkling-Small77.4%
Source
Not directly comparable

Knowledge

GPQA-D
Gemini 3.5 Flash92.7%
Source
Inkling-Small89.5%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
HLE
Gemini 3.5 Flash40.2%
Source
Inkling-Small47.8%
Source
Inkling-Small leads this result
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash92.7%
Source
Inkling-Small83.6%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash89.5%
Source
Inkling-Small85.6%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
GPQA
Gemini 3.5 Flash—
Inkling-Small89.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Gemini 3.5 Flash—
Inkling-Small31.6%
Source
Not directly comparable

Instruction following

IFBench
Gemini 3.5 Flash—
Inkling-Small82.2%
Source
Not directly comparable

Math

FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Shared source
Gemini 3.5 Flash62.807%
Inkling-Small46.316%
Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Shared source
Gemini 3.5 Flash26.829%
Inkling-Small17.073%
Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
AIME26
Gemini 3.5 Flash—
Inkling-Small95.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2026
Gemini 3.5 Flash—
Inkling-Small90.2%
Source
Not directly comparable

42 public results · 17 shared

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

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 issue

Join 6,100+ subscribers.

Last updated October 29, 2026

Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Inkling-Small

Decision reading

Which one for your work

Coding work

Agentic work

Chat turn cost

Cache-heavy agent loop cost

Repository review cost

Long documents

Which one for a specific job

What is actually comparable

Shape of the matched evidence

Category results, on a stated basis

Agentic

Coding

Multimodal

Knowledge

Instruction following

Reasoning

Multilingual

Math

What each workload costs

Chat turn

Repository review

Cache-heavy agent loop

Specification differences

Context window

API model ID

Cached-input rate

Documented inputs

Documented outputs

Provider availability

Reasoning profile

Weight access

License

Release date

If you already use one of these models

Questions

Which is better, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Inkling-Small?

Which is better for coding, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Inkling-Small?

Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Inkling-Small?

Which costs less, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Inkling-Small?

Which has the larger context window, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Inkling-Small?

Benchmark evidence

Agentic

Coding

Reasoning

Multimodal

Knowledge

Instruction following

Math

Related comparisons

Watch Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Inkling-Small