Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Inkling-Small

Updated July 30, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Google

63.9/100

Estimated · Public rank #37

90% interval 53.2–74.6

Inkling-Small

Thinking Machines Lab

—

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.

9 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

    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

  • 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

  • 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

    The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.

    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.

Shared results
9
Gemini 3.5 Flash only
13
Inkling-Small only
11
Like-for-like categories
1 / 8

4 categories use 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.

Multimodal

Like-for-like
Gemini 3.5 Flash
83.8
Inkling-Small
76.6
Weighted basis
2 vs 2 rows
Reading
Gemini 3.5 Flash leads

Agentic

Directional only
Gemini 3.5 Flash
77.2
Inkling-Small
70.1
Weighted basis
2 vs 2 rows
Reading
Directional only

Coding

Directional only
Gemini 3.5 Flash
55.1
Inkling-Small
62.4
Weighted basis
1 vs 3 rows
Reading
Directional only

Reasoning

Directional only
Gemini 3.5 Flash
74.7
Inkling-Small
40.1
Weighted basis
2 vs 1 rows
Reading
Directional only

Knowledge

Directional only
Gemini 3.5 Flash
40.2
Inkling-Small
53.4
Weighted basis
1 vs 2 rows
Reading
Directional only

Math

Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash
32.9
Inkling-Small
92.9
Weighted basis
2 vs 2 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Not measured
Inkling-Small
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Not measured
Inkling-Small
82.2
Weighted basis
0 vs 1 rows
Reading
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.

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.

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

Gemini 3.5 Flash

1M

Google Gemini API pricing

Inkling-Small

1M

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
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
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 evidence33 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    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

  • 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 2.0

    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

  • cursorBench32

    Gemini 3.5 Flash48.8%
    Source
    Inkling-Small—

    Not directly comparable

  • 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

  • CritPt

    Gemini 3.5 Flash—
    Inkling-Small8.3%
    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

    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

Math

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Gemini 3.5 Flash38.966%
    Source
    Inkling-Small—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Gemini 3.5 Flash14.583%
    Source
    Inkling-Small—

    Not directly comparable

  • 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

Multimodal

  • 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

Instruction following

  • IFBench

    Gemini 3.5 Flash—
    Inkling-Small82.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

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

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

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

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 3.5 Flash or Inkling-Small?

The current agentic tasks 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 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

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated July 30, 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 issue

Join 2,000+ readers.