Reasoning
Like-for-like- GPT-5.4
- 74.0
- Inkling-Small
- 40.1
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- GPT-5.4 leads
Model comparison
GPT-5.4 vs Inkling-Small
Updated July 30, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
11 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
GPT-5.4
GPT-5.4 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. 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
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
26 GPT-5.4 only
11 Shared
9 Inkling-Small only
- Shared results
- 11
- GPT-5.4 only
- 26
- Inkling-Small only
- 9
- Like-for-like categories
- 2 / 8
3 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.
Knowledge
Like-for-like- GPT-5.4
- 57.6
- Inkling-Small
- 53.4
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- GPT-5.4 leads
Agentic
Directional only- GPT-5.4
- 77.2
- Inkling-Small
- 70.1
- Weighted basis
- 3 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Coding
Directional only- GPT-5.4
- 57.7
- Inkling-Small
- 62.4
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 3 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Multimodal
Directional only- GPT-5.4
- 73.2
- Inkling-Small
- 76.6
- Weighted basis
- 3 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Math
Not comparable- GPT-5.4
- 42.5
- Inkling-Small
- 92.9
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- GPT-5.4
- Not measured
- Inkling-Small
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- GPT-5.4
- Not measured
- Inkling-Small
- 82.2
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | GPT-5.4 | Inkling-Small | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning | 74.0 | 40.1 | Like-for-like1 vs 1 rows | GPT-5.4 leads |
| Knowledge | 57.6 | 53.4 | Like-for-like2 vs 2 rows | GPT-5.4 leads |
| Agentic | 77.2 | 70.1 | Directional only3 vs 2 rows | Directional only |
| Coding | 57.7 | 62.4 | Directional only1 vs 3 rows | Directional only |
| Multimodal | 73.2 | 76.6 | Directional only3 vs 2 rows | Directional only |
| Math | 42.5 | 92.9 | Not comparable2 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 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.
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.
ARC-AGI-2
Reasoning
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Agentic
MMMU-Pro
Multimodal
BrowseComp
Agentic
HLE
Knowledge
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
- GPT-5.4
- $0.01
- 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
- GPT-5.4
- $0.17
- 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
- GPT-5.4
- $0.25
- 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.
SpecificationGPT-5.4Inkling-Small
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
GPT-5.4
1.05M
OpenAI pricingInkling-Small
1M
API model ID
GPT-5.4
gpt-5.4
OpenAI pricingInkling-Small
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
GPT-5.4
$0.25 per 1M cached input tokens
OpenAI pricingInkling-Small
$0.116 per 1M cached input tokens
Documented inputs
GPT-5.4
Not sourced
Inkling-Small
Not sourced
Documented outputs
GPT-5.4
Not sourced
Inkling-Small
Not sourced
Provider availability
GPT-5.4
Not sourced
Inkling-Small
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
GPT-5.4
Reasoning
Inkling-Small
Hybrid
Weight access
GPT-5.4
Proprietary
Inkling-Small
Open Weight
License
GPT-5.4
Proprietary
Inkling-Small
Open Weight
Release date
GPT-5.4
2026-03-05
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: $0.17 vs $0.03332. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.25 vs $0.0492.
- Context tradeoff
- GPT-5.4 has the larger documented window (1.05M).
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 evidence46 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
GPT-5.475.1%SourceInkling-Small64.7%SourceGPT-5.4 leads this result
CyberGym
GPT-5.479.0%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
BrowseComp
GPT-5.482.7%SourceInkling-Small77.4%SourceGPT-5.4 leads this result
OSWorld-Verified
GPT-5.475%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
GPT-5.470.6%SourceInkling-Small79.6%SourceInkling-Small leads this result
Toolathlon
GPT-5.454.6%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
τ²-bench results
GPT-5.498.9%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
Claw-Eval
GPT-5.460.3%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
DeepSearchQA
GPT-5.473.6%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
GPT-5.464.89%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
ResearchClawBench
GPT-5.415.3%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
JobBench
GPT-5.438.9%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
ExploitGym
GPT-5.46.0%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
GPT-5.4—Inkling-Small54.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
LiveCodeBench Pro
GPT-5.487.5%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
GPT-5.457.7%SourceInkling-Small55.9%SourceGPT-5.4 leads this result
React Native Evals
GPT-5.485.3%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
Vibe Code Bench
GPT-5.467.42%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
GPT-5.4—Inkling-Small80.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
GPT-5.4—Inkling-Small64.7%SourceNot directly comparable
SciCode
GPT-5.4—Inkling-Small48.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Knowledge
GPQA
GPT-5.492.8%SourceInkling-Small89.5%SourceGPT-5.4 leads this result
HLE
GPT-5.452.1%SourceInkling-Small47.8%SourceGPT-5.4 leads this result
HLE w/o tools
GPT-5.439.8%SourceInkling-Small31.6%SourceGPT-5.4 leads this result
GPQA-D
GPT-5.492.8%SourceInkling-Small89.5%SourceGPT-5.4 leads this result
HealthBench Hard
GPT-5.440.1%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
MedXpertQA (Text)
GPT-5.459.6%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
HealthBench Professional
GPT-5.448.1%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
Math
Multimodal
MMMU-Pro
GPT-5.481.2%SourceInkling-Small74%SourceGPT-5.4 leads this result
OfficeQA Pro
GPT-5.453.2%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
MMMU-Pro w/ Python
GPT-5.482.1%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
CharXiv
GPT-5.482.8%SourceInkling-Small81.3%SourceGPT-5.4 leads this result
ERQA
GPT-5.465.4%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
SimpleVQA
GPT-5.461.1%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
ScreenSpot Pro
GPT-5.485.4%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
ZeroBench
GPT-5.441.0%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)
GPT-5.477.1%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
CharXiv w/o tools
GPT-5.4—Inkling-Small77.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Instruction following
IFBench
GPT-5.4—Inkling-Small82.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, GPT-5.4 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, GPT-5.4 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, GPT-5.4 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, GPT-5.4 or Inkling-Small?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.01 on GPT-5.4 and $0.0013 on Inkling-Small; repository review costs $0.17 and $0.03332; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.25 and $0.0492. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Which has the larger context window, GPT-5.4 or Inkling-Small?
GPT-5.4 has the larger documented context window: 1.05M, compared with 1M.
Related comparisons
Last updated July 30, 2026
Watch GPT-5.4 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.