Skip to main content

Model comparison

GPT-5.4 nano vs Inkling

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 6 shared benchmark results across 3 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

66.72/100
Margin
2.3pts
winning →
Thinking Machines Lab
69/100
0 category wins4 category wins

Verified leaderboard positions: GPT-5.4 nano unranked; Inkling #17

BenchAlign evidence: GPT-5.4 nano supported; Inkling not scored. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. GPT-5.4 nano and Inkling share 6 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 24 results are unique to GPT-5.4 nano; 10 to Inkling.

Updated July 15, 2026
Shared results
6
GPT-5.4 nano only
24
Inkling only
10
Comparable categories
4 / 8

Pick Inkling if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-5.4 nano only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 6 shared benchmark results across 3 evidence categories; 4 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Inkling is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 69 to 60. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Inkling's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 97.1 against 21. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 46.3% to 63.8%.

Inkling is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.87 input / $4.68 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.20 input / $1.25 output per 1M tokens for GPT-5.4 nano. That is roughly 3.7x on output cost alone. GPT-5.4 nano is the reasoning model in the pair, while Inkling is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Inkling gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 400K for GPT-5.4 nano.

Category breakdown

Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.

Category scores and score margins for GPT-5.4 nano and Inkling
CategoryGPT-5.4 nanoΔInkling
MathGPT-5.4 nano21.0Margin 76.1Inkling97.1
AgenticGPT-5.4 nano42.9Margin 26.5Inkling69.4
MultimodalGPT-5.4 nano66.1Margin 10.4Inkling76.5
KnowledgeGPT-5.4 nano43.8Margin 7.9Inkling51.7
CodingGPT-5.4 nanoNot measuredMarginNo overlapInkling68.6
Inst. FollowingGPT-5.4 nanoNot measuredMarginNo overlapInkling79.8

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · GPT-5.4 nanoB · Inkling
  1. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 46.3%B 63.8%
    Winner: InklingΔ 17.5
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: GPT-5.4 nano scored 46.3%; Inkling scored 63.8%. Inkling wins this benchmark.
  2. HLE

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 37.7%B 46%
    Winner: InklingΔ 8.3
    HLE: GPT-5.4 nano scored 37.7%; Inkling scored 46%. Inkling wins this benchmark.
  3. MMMU-Pro

    Multimodal
    Source ↗
    A 66.1%B 73.5%
    Winner: InklingΔ 7.4
    MMMU-Pro: GPT-5.4 nano scored 66.1%; Inkling scored 73.5%. Inkling wins this benchmark.
  4. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 82.8%B 87.9%
    Winner: InklingΔ 5.1
    GPQA: GPT-5.4 nano scored 82.8%; Inkling scored 87.9%. Inkling wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricGPT-5.4 nanoInklingComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensGPT-5.4 nano$0.2 input / $1.25 outputInkling$1.87 input / $4.68 outputGPT-5.4 nano has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondGPT-5.4 nano191 tok/sInklingNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenGPT-5.4 nano3.64 sInklingNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensGPT-5.4 nano400KInkling1MInkling lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticInkling wins
BenchmarkGPT-5.4 nanoInklingResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 46.3%63.8%Inkling leads
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 39%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource 56.1%74.1%Inkling leads
ToolathlonSource 35.5%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 92.5%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 27.5%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource 24.9%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 30.0%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 1100Not comparable
BrowseCompSource 77.1%Not comparable
Design Arena Agentic Web DevSource 1258Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkGPT-5.4 nanoInklingResult
Vibe Code BenchSource 26.10%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 56.1%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench HardSource 42.4%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 46.9%Not comparable
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 77.6%Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 54.3%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 63.8%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkGPT-5.4 nanoInklingResult
AA-LCRSource 66.0%Not comparable
CritPtSource 9.3%Not comparable
KnowledgeInkling wins
BenchmarkGPT-5.4 nanoInklingResult
GPQASource 82.8%87.9%Inkling leads
HLESource 37.7%46%Inkling leads
HLE w/o toolsSource 24.3%30%Inkling leads
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 38.2%Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 81.7%Not comparable
AA-HLESource 26.5%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -29.5%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 25.4%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 73.6%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource 87.9%Not comparable
MathInkling wins
BenchmarkGPT-5.4 nanoInklingResult
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 25.860%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 6.250%Not comparable
AIME26Source 97.1%Not comparable
MultimodalInkling wins
BenchmarkGPT-5.4 nanoInklingResult
MMMU-ProSource 66.1%73.5%Inkling leads
MMMU-Pro w/ PythonSource 69.5%Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 65.4%Not comparable
CharXivSource 82%Not comparable
CharXiv w/o toolsSource 78.1%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkGPT-5.4 nanoInklingResult
AA-IFBenchSource 75.9%Not comparable
IFBenchSource 79.8%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (5)

Which is better, GPT-5.4 nano or Inkling?

Inkling is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 69 to 60. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 46.3% and 63.8%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, GPT-5.4 nano or Inkling?

Inkling has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 51.7 versus 43.8. Inside this category, HLE is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, GPT-5.4 nano or Inkling?

Inkling has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 97.1 versus 21. GPT-5.4 nano stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Which is better for agentic tasks, GPT-5.4 nano or Inkling?

Inkling has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 69.4 versus 42.9. Inside this category, MCP Atlas is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, GPT-5.4 nano or Inkling?

Inkling has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 76.5 versus 66.1. Inside this category, MMMU-Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 15, 2026

The AI models change fast. We track them for you.

A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.

Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.