Agentic
Not comparable- Gemini 3.6 Flash
- 83.0
- Inkling-Small
- 70.1
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Model comparison
Gemini 3.6 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
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
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.
3 Gemini 3.6 Flash only
20 Inkling-Small only
- Shared results
- 0
- Gemini 3.6 Flash only
- 3
- 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 3.6 Flash
- Not measured
- Inkling-Small
- 62.4
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 3 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Gemini 3.6 Flash
- Not measured
- Inkling-Small
- 40.1
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Gemini 3.6 Flash
- Not measured
- Inkling-Small
- 53.4
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Gemini 3.6 Flash
- Not measured
- Inkling-Small
- 92.9
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Gemini 3.6 Flash
- Not measured
- Inkling-Small
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Gemini 3.6 Flash
- Not measured
- Inkling-Small
- 76.6
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Gemini 3.6 Flash
- Not measured
- Inkling-Small
- 82.2
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Gemini 3.6 Flash | Inkling-Small | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 83.0 | 70.1 | Not comparable1 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 | Not measured | 92.9 | Not comparable0 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 3.6 Flash
- $0.00525
- 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 3.6 Flash
- $0.0975
- 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 3.6 Flash
- $0.135
- 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 3.6 FlashInkling-Small
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Gemini 3.6 Flash
Inkling-Small
1M
API model ID
Gemini 3.6 Flash
gemini-3.6-flash
Google Gemini 3.6 Flash model documentationInkling-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 3.6 Flash
$0.15 per 1M cached input tokens
Google Gemini API pricingInkling-Small
$0.116 per 1M cached input tokens
Documented inputs
Gemini 3.6 Flash
text, image, video, audio, pdf
Google Gemini 3.6 Flash model documentationInkling-Small
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Gemini 3.6 Flash
Inkling-Small
Not sourced
Provider availability
Gemini 3.6 Flash
Generally Available · Gemini API, Google AI Studio
Google latest Gemini model guideInkling-Small
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Gemini 3.6 Flash
Reasoning
Inkling-Small
Hybrid
Weight access
Gemini 3.6 Flash
Proprietary
Inkling-Small
Open Weight
License
Gemini 3.6 Flash
Proprietary
Inkling-Small
Open Weight
Release date
Gemini 3.6 Flash
2026-07-21
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: $0.0975 vs $0.03332. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.135 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 evidence23 rows
Agentic
OSWorld-Verified
Gemini 3.6 Flash83%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Gemini 3.6 Flash—Inkling-Small64.7%SourceNot directly comparable
BrowseComp
Gemini 3.6 Flash—Inkling-Small77.4%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Gemini 3.6 Flash—Inkling-Small79.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
Gemini 3.6 Flash—Inkling-Small54.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
deepSwe
Gemini 3.6 Flash49%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
cursorBench32
Gemini 3.6 Flash53.5%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
Gemini 3.6 Flash—Inkling-Small80.2%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Gemini 3.6 Flash—Inkling-Small55.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Gemini 3.6 Flash—Inkling-Small64.7%SourceNot directly comparable
SciCode
Gemini 3.6 Flash—Inkling-Small48.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Knowledge
Math
Multimodal
Instruction following
IFBench
Gemini 3.6 Flash—Inkling-Small82.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Gemini 3.6 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 3.6 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 3.6 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 3.6 Flash or Inkling-Small?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.00525 on Gemini 3.6 Flash and $0.0013 on Inkling-Small; repository review costs $0.0975 and $0.03332; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.135 and $0.0492. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Which has the larger context window, Gemini 3.6 Flash or Inkling-Small?
Both models list the same context window, 1M.
Related comparisons
Last updated July 30, 2026
Watch Gemini 3.6 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.