Skip to main content

Model comparison

Gemini 3 Pro vs Inkling-Small

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

Gemini 3 Pro

Google

66.8/100

Supported · Public rank #21

90% interval 55.9–77.8

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.

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.

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    Gemini 3 Pro

    Gemini 3 Pro has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented

  • 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. Gemini 3 Pro has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

    Confidence: rate-fallback

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

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
3
Gemini 3 Pro only
9
Inkling-Small only
17
Like-for-like categories
2 / 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.

Reasoning

Like-for-like
Gemini 3 Pro
31.1
Inkling-Small
40.1
Weighted basis
1 vs 1 rows
Reading
Inkling-Small leads

Multimodal

Like-for-like
Gemini 3 Pro
81.1
Inkling-Small
76.6
Weighted basis
2 vs 2 rows
Reading
Gemini 3 Pro leads

Agentic

Not comparable
Gemini 3 Pro
Not measured
Inkling-Small
70.1
Weighted basis
0 vs 2 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
Gemini 3 Pro
Not measured
Inkling-Small
62.4
Weighted basis
0 vs 3 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
Gemini 3 Pro
Not measured
Inkling-Small
53.4
Weighted basis
0 vs 2 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Gemini 3 Pro
32.9
Inkling-Small
92.9
Weighted basis
2 vs 2 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Gemini 3 Pro
Not measured
Inkling-Small
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Gemini 3 Pro
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 Pro
$0.008
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 Pro
$0.136
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 Pro
$0.56
Fits in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Inkling-Small
$0.0492
Fits in one request

Inkling-Small has the lower modeled cost

Gemini 3 Pro has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

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 Pro

2M

Inkling-Small

1M

API model ID

Gemini 3 Pro

Not sourced

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 Pro

Not published

Inkling-Small

$0.116 per 1M cached input tokens

Documented inputs

Gemini 3 Pro

Not sourced

Inkling-Small

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Gemini 3 Pro

Not sourced

Inkling-Small

Not sourced

Provider availability

Gemini 3 Pro

Not sourced

Inkling-Small

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Gemini 3 Pro

Non-Reasoning

Inkling-Small

Hybrid

Weight access

Gemini 3 Pro

Proprietary

Inkling-Small

Open Weight

License

Gemini 3 Pro

Proprietary

Inkling-Small

Open Weight

Release date

Gemini 3 Pro

2025-11-18

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: $0.136 vs $0.03332. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.56 vs $0.0492.
Context tradeoff
Gemini 3 Pro has the larger documented window (2M).

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 evidence29 rows

Agentic

  • Gert Labs

    Gemini 3 Pro63.23%
    Source
    Inkling-Small

    Not directly comparable

  • JobBench

    Gemini 3 Pro11.4%
    Source
    Inkling-Small

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Gemini 3 Pro
    Inkling-Small64.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BrowseComp

    Gemini 3 Pro
    Inkling-Small77.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    Gemini 3 Pro
    Inkling-Small79.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon-Verified

    Gemini 3 Pro
    Inkling-Small54.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • Vibe Code Bench

    Gemini 3 Pro14.30%
    Source
    Inkling-Small

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Gemini 3 Pro
    Inkling-Small80.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Gemini 3 Pro
    Inkling-Small55.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Gemini 3 Pro
    Inkling-Small64.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SciCode

    Gemini 3 Pro
    Inkling-Small48.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • ARC-AGI-2

    Gemini 3 Pro31.1%
    Source
    Inkling-Small40.1%
    Source

    Inkling-Small leads this result

  • CritPt

    Gemini 3 Pro
    Inkling-Small8.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA

    Gemini 3 Pro
    Inkling-Small89.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA-D

    Gemini 3 Pro
    Inkling-Small89.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE

    Gemini 3 Pro
    Inkling-Small47.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/o tools

    Gemini 3 Pro
    Inkling-Small31.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Gemini 3 Pro37.600%
    Source
    Inkling-Small

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Gemini 3 Pro18.750%
    Source
    Inkling-Small

    Not directly comparable

  • AIME26

    Gemini 3 Pro
    Inkling-Small95.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Feb 2026

    Gemini 3 Pro
    Inkling-Small90.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • MMMU-Pro

    Gemini 3 Pro81%
    Source
    Inkling-Small74%
    Source

    Gemini 3 Pro leads this result

  • MathVision

    Gemini 3 Pro86.6%
    Source
    Inkling-Small

    Not directly comparable

  • VideoMMMU

    Gemini 3 Pro87.6%
    Source
    Inkling-Small

    Not directly comparable

  • ScreenSpot Pro

    Gemini 3 Pro72.7%
    Source
    Inkling-Small

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv

    Gemini 3 Pro81.4%
    Source
    Inkling-Small81.3%
    Source

    Gemini 3 Pro leads this result

  • V*

    Gemini 3 Pro88.0%
    Source
    Inkling-Small

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv w/o tools

    Gemini 3 Pro
    Inkling-Small77.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • IFBench

    Gemini 3 Pro
    Inkling-Small82.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Gemini 3 Pro 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 Pro 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 Pro 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 Pro or Inkling-Small?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.008 on Gemini 3 Pro and $0.0013 on Inkling-Small; repository review costs $0.136 and $0.03332; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.56 and $0.0492. Gemini 3 Pro has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

Which has the larger context window, Gemini 3 Pro or Inkling-Small?

Gemini 3 Pro has the larger documented context window: 2M, compared with 1M.

Related comparisons

Last updated July 30, 2026

Watch Gemini 3 Pro 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.