Agentic
Directional only- GPT-5.5 Pro
- 90.1
- Inkling
- 69.4
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Five or fewer confirmed AI changes, with original sources, on mornings when something changed.A free source-linked morning brief.
Start the free Radar BriefUpdated August 29, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
Inkling has the higher public score estimate, 67.02 versus 64.43, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
3 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
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.
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
GPT-5.5 Pro
GPT-5.5 Pro has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Inkling
Inkling has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Inkling
Inkling has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. GPT-5.5 Pro has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Inkling
Inkling has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
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
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
2 categories use different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
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.
| Category | GPT-5.5 Pro | Inkling | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 90.1 | 69.4 | Directional only1 vs 2 rows | Directional only |
| Knowledge | 57.2 | 51.6 | Directional only1 vs 2 rows | Directional only |
| Coding | Not measured | 68.6 | Not comparable0 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 48.1 | 97.1 | Not comparable2 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not measured | 76.5 | Not comparable0 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | 79.8 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
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.
BrowseComp
Agentic
HLE
Knowledge
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.
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Inkling has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Inkling has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Inkling has the lower modeled cost
GPT-5.5 Pro has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
GPT-5.5 Pro
Inkling
1M
GPT-5.5 Pro
gpt-5.5-pro
OpenAI GPT-5.5 Pro model documentationInkling
Not sourced
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
GPT-5.5 Pro
Not published
OpenAI pricingInkling
$0.374 per 1M cached input tokens
GPT-5.5 Pro
text, image
OpenAI model catalogInkling
Not sourced
GPT-5.5 Pro
Inkling
Not sourced
GPT-5.5 Pro
Generally Available · OpenAI Responses API
OpenAI model catalogInkling
Not sourced
GPT-5.5 Pro
Reasoning
Inkling
Hybrid
GPT-5.5 Pro
Proprietary
Inkling
Open Weight
GPT-5.5 Pro
Proprietary
Inkling
Open Weight
GPT-5.5 Pro
2026-04-23
Inkling
2026-07-15
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
IFBench
Not directly comparable
Inkling has the higher public score estimate, 67.02 versus 64.43, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.
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.
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.12 on GPT-5.5 Pro and $0.00421 on Inkling; repository review costs $2.04 and $0.10754; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $8.40 and $0.159. GPT-5.5 Pro has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
GPT-5.5 Pro has the larger documented context window: 1.05M, compared with 1M.
Last updated August 29, 2026
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.