Skip to main content
BenchLM
Data

Gemini 4 Carbon vs Inkling 2 Small

Updated November 7, 2026. Rank says Gemini 4 Carbon is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Share or export
Share on XLinkedInAPI/MCP

Decision reading

Gemini 4 Carbon has the higher public point estimate, 88.69 versus 59.06. Their conditional score ranges do not overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. 1 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Model A
Google logo
Gemini 4 Carbon

Google

88.69/100

Estimated · Public rank #1

Conditional range 79.0–98.4

Model B
Thinking Machines Lab logo
Inkling 2 Small

Thinking Machines Lab

59.06/100

Estimated · Public rank #56

Conditional range 44.7–73.4

Shared results
1
Gemini 4 Carbon only
9
Inkling 2 Small only
24
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8
Estimated: Gemini 4 Carbon and Inkling 2 Small. Conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.How 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.

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Inkling 2 Small

    Inkling 2 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 2 Small

    Inkling 2 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 2 Small

    Inkling 2 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

    Gemini 4 Carbon is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    Gemini 4 Carbon is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.

    Confidence: limited

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete context comparison is not sourced.

    Confidence: limited

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.

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

81.3Gemini 4 Carbon59.7Inkling 2 Small

Directional only · BenchAlign v5.8

Gemini 4 Carbon 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 leaderboardShortlist models for this job
Same basis rules as the category table below

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

1 category rests on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

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.

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.

Coding

Directional only
Gemini 4 Carbon
81.3
Estimated · #3/157
Inkling 2 Small
59.7
Supported · #20/157
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 6 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Agentic

Not comparable
Gemini 4 Carbon
Not ranked
Inkling 2 Small
59.9
Supported · #26/131
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 4 vs 5 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Gemini 4 Carbon
77.8
Unranked · 1 rankable row
Inkling 2 Small
86.1
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Gemini 4 Carbon
Not ranked
Inkling 2 Small
86.6
#12/59
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
Gemini 4 Carbon
Not ranked
Inkling 2 Small
60.4
Estimated · #46/178
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 2 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Gemini 4 Carbon
Not ranked
Inkling 2 Small
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Gemini 4 Carbon
Not ranked
Inkling 2 Small
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Gemini 4 Carbon
Not ranked
Inkling 2 Small
85.9
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
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 4 Carbon
$0.007
Fit state unavailable
Inkling 2 Small
$0.0008
Fits in one request

Inkling 2 Small has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Gemini 4 Carbon
$0.13
Fit state unavailable
Inkling 2 Small
$0.018
Fits in one request

Inkling 2 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 4 Carbon
$0.16
Fit state unavailable
Inkling 2 Small
$0.022
Fits in one request

Inkling 2 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.

API model ID

Gemini 4 Carbon

Not sourced

Inkling 2 Small

Not sourced

Documented inputs

Gemini 4 Carbon

Not sourced

Inkling 2 Small

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Gemini 4 Carbon

Not sourced

Inkling 2 Small

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Gemini 4 Carbon

Reasoning

Inkling 2 Small

Hybrid

Weight access

Gemini 4 Carbon

Proprietary

Inkling 2 Small

Proprietary

License

Gemini 4 Carbon

Proprietary

Inkling 2 Small

Proprietary

Release date

Gemini 4 Carbon

2026-10-28

Inkling 2 Small

2026-11-05

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 4 Carbon has the higher public point estimate, 88.69 versus 59.06. Their conditional score ranges do not overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Workload cost
Repository review: $0.13 vs $0.018. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.16 vs $0.022.
Context tradeoff
A complete documented context comparison is not available.
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Questions

Which is better, Gemini 4 Carbon or Inkling 2 Small?

Gemini 4 Carbon has the higher public point estimate, 88.69 versus 59.06. Their conditional score ranges do not overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, Gemini 4 Carbon or Inkling 2 Small?

Gemini 4 Carbon scores higher for coding on the public lane, 81.3 to 59.7. Gemini 4 Carbon is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemini 4 Carbon or Inkling 2 Small?

Gemini 4 Carbon is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.

Which costs less, Gemini 4 Carbon or Inkling 2 Small?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.007 on Gemini 4 Carbon and $0.0008 on Inkling 2 Small; repository review costs $0.13 and $0.018; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.16 and $0.022. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Which has the larger context window, Gemini 4 Carbon or Inkling 2 Small?

A complete documented context-window comparison is not available.

Benchmark evidence

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

Browse raw public benchmark evidence34 rows

Agentic

  • AutomationBench

    Gemini 4 Carbon53.9%
    Source
    Inkling 2 Small—

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld 2.1 Offline

    Gemini 4 Carbon81.5%
    Source
    Inkling 2 Small—

    Not directly comparable

  • CWE-bench v1

    Gemini 4 Carbon71.0%
    Source
    Inkling 2 Small—

    Not directly comparable

  • ExploitGym

    Gemini 4 Carbon53.5%
    Source
    Inkling 2 Small—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Gemini 4 Carbon—
    Inkling 2 Small85.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BrowseComp

    Gemini 4 Carbon—
    Inkling 2 Small90.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSearchQA

    Gemini 4 Carbon—
    Inkling 2 Small90.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    Gemini 4 Carbon—
    Inkling 2 Small85%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • JobBench

    Gemini 4 Carbon—
    Inkling 2 Small70.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • FrontierSWE v2

    Gemini 4 Carbon61.2%
    Source
    Inkling 2 Small—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierCode 2.0

    Gemini 4 Carbon40.0%
    Source
    Inkling 2 Small—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Gemini 4 Carbon—
    Inkling 2 Small82.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE Multilingual

    Gemini 4 Carbon—
    Inkling 2 Small81.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • sweMarathon

    Gemini 4 Carbon—
    Inkling 2 Small38.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Gemini 4 Carbon—
    Inkling 2 Small85.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSWE

    Gemini 4 Carbon—
    Inkling 2 Small72.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • PostTrainBench v1.2

    Gemini 4 Carbon—
    Inkling 2 Small31.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • GraphWalks BFS 256K–1M

    Gemini 4 Carbon96.2%
    Source
    Inkling 2 Small—

    Not directly comparable

  • LongBench v2

    Gemini 4 Carbon—
    Inkling 2 Small70.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • Chartography (no tools)

    Gemini 4 Carbon72.5%
    Source
    Inkling 2 Small36.7%
    Source

    Gemini 4 Carbon leads this result

  • Blueprint-Bench 2

    Gemini 4 Carbon58.6%
    Source
    Inkling 2 Small—

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv

    Gemini 4 Carbon—
    Inkling 2 Small87.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv w/o tools

    Gemini 4 Carbon—
    Inkling 2 Small85.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Chartography (tools)

    Gemini 4 Carbon—
    Inkling 2 Small80.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BabyVision

    Gemini 4 Carbon—
    Inkling 2 Small68.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BabyVision w/ Python

    Gemini 4 Carbon—
    Inkling 2 Small93.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ScreenSpot Pro

    Gemini 4 Carbon—
    Inkling 2 Small83.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • PerceptionBench

    Gemini 4 Carbon—
    Inkling 2 Small64.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MathVision

    Gemini 4 Carbon—
    Inkling 2 Small92.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA

    Gemini 4 Carbon—
    Inkling 2 Small93%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA-D

    Gemini 4 Carbon—
    Inkling 2 Small93.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • Gray Swan IPI (15 attempts)

    Gemini 4 Carbon0.0%
    Source
    Inkling 2 Small—

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • HMMT Feb 2026

    Gemini 4 Carbon—
    Inkling 2 Small95.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Apex

    Gemini 4 Carbon—
    Inkling 2 Small63.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

34 public results · 1 shared

Related comparisons

Compare API pricingRead the methodologyOpen the model selector

Watch Gemini 4 Carbon vs Inkling 2 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 November 7, 2026