GPT-5.6 Terra vs Inkling-Small

Updated October 29, 2026. Rank says GPT-5.6 Terra is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Decision reading

GPT-5.6 Terra has the higher public score estimate, 69.81 versus 49.5, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner. 16 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Model A

GPT-5.6 Terra

OpenAI

69.81/100

Supported · Public rank #15

90% interval 65.5–74.2

Model B

Inkling-Small

Thinking Machines Lab

49.5/100

Supported · Public rank #96

90% interval 32.4–66.6

Shared results: 16
GPT-5.6 Terra only: 21
Inkling-Small only: 12
Like-for-like categories: 3 / 8

Supported: GPT-5.6 Terra and Inkling-SmallHow 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.

Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
GPT-5.6 Terra
GPT-5.6 Terra has the higher public coding point estimate, 62 to 36.9, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
GPT-5.6 Terra
GPT-5.6 Terra has the higher public agentic point estimate, 60.9 to 36.1, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
GPT-5.6 Terra
GPT-5.6 Terra has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented

Show secondary and unsupported calls

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
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

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.

Pick the job you would use them for

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

62.0GPT-5.6 Terra36.9Inkling-Small

Like-for-like · BenchAlign v5.8

GPT-5.6 Terra 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 leaderboard Shortlist models for this job

Same basis rules as the category table below

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.

FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Math
Normalized gap 51.2
GPT-5.6 Terra:68.300%
Inkling-Small:17.073%
GPT-5.6 Terra source Inkling-Small source
ARC-AGI-2Reasoning
Normalized gap 43.8
GPT-5.6 Terra:83.9%
Inkling-Small:40.1%
GPT-5.6 Terra source Inkling-Small source
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Math
Normalized gap 38.6
GPT-5.6 Terra:84.900%
Inkling-Small:46.316%
GPT-5.6 Terra source Inkling-Small source
BrowseCompAgentic
Normalized gap 10.1
GPT-5.6 Terra:87.5%
Inkling-Small:77.4%
GPT-5.6 Terra source Inkling-Small source
SWE-bench ProCoding
Normalized gap 7.5
GPT-5.6 Terra:63.4%
Inkling-Small:55.9%
GPT-5.6 Terra source Inkling-Small source

Bars run 0–100 on each benchmark’s normalized display scale

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.

Agentic

Like-for-like

GPT-5.6 Terra: 60.9; Supported · #27/135
Inkling-Small: 36.1; Supported · #86/135
Basis: BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 10 vs 5 public rows
Reading: GPT-5.6 Terra leads

Coding

Like-for-like

GPT-5.6 Terra: 62.0; Supported · #16/156
Inkling-Small: 36.9; Supported · #77/156
Basis: BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 9 vs 6 public rows
Reading: GPT-5.6 Terra leads

Knowledge

Like-for-like

GPT-5.6 Terra: 69.1; Supported · #19/179
Inkling-Small: 50.6; Supported · #75/179
Basis: BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 8 vs 6 public rows
Reading: GPT-5.6 Terra leads · intervals overlap

Multimodal

Directional only

GPT-5.6 Terra: 84.7; #14/58
Inkling-Small: 67.3; #41/58
Basis: Provisional lane · 1 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading: Directional only

Instruction following

Directional only

GPT-5.6 Terra: 87.1; #42/157
Inkling-Small: 93.3; #10/157
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading: Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable

GPT-5.6 Terra: 69.1; #18/26
Inkling-Small: 55.0; Unranked · 4 rankable rows
Basis: Provisional lane · 2 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable

GPT-5.6 Terra: Not ranked
Inkling-Small: Not ranked
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Math

Not comparable

GPT-5.6 Terra: 90.1; Unranked · 3 rankable rows
Inkling-Small: 69.8; #5/12
Basis: Provisional lane · 2 vs 4 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Category scores with the server-provided evidence basis for GPT-5.6 Terra and Inkling-Small
Category	GPT-5.6 Terra	Inkling-Small	Basis	Reading
Agentic	60.9Supported · #27/135	36.1Supported · #86/135	Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 10 vs 5 public rows	GPT-5.6 Terra leads
Coding	62.0Supported · #16/156	36.9Supported · #77/156	Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 9 vs 6 public rows	GPT-5.6 Terra leads
Knowledge	69.1Supported · #19/179	50.6Supported · #75/179	Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 8 vs 6 public rows	GPT-5.6 Terra leads · intervals overlap
Multimodal	84.7#14/58	67.3#41/58	Directional onlyProvisional lane · 1 vs 2 weighted rows	Directional only
Instruction following	87.1#42/157	93.3#10/157	Directional onlyProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows	Directional only
Reasoning	69.1#18/26	55.0Unranked · 4 rankable rows	Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 1 weighted rows	Not comparable
Multilingual	Not ranked	Not ranked	Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows	Not comparable
Math	90.1Unranked · 3 rankable rows	69.8#5/12	Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 4 weighted rows	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

GPT-5.6 Terra: $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

GPT-5.6 Terra: $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

GPT-5.6 Terra: $0.2; 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.

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.

SpecificationGPT-5.6 TerraInkling-Small

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

GPT-5.6 Terra

1.05M

OpenAI model catalog

Inkling-Small

API model ID

GPT-5.6 Terra

gpt-5.6-terra

OpenAI model catalog

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.

GPT-5.6 Terra

$0.2 per 1M cached input tokens

OpenAI pricing

Inkling-Small

$0.116 per 1M cached input tokens

Documented inputs

GPT-5.6 Terra

text, image

OpenAI model catalog

Inkling-Small

Not sourced

Documented outputs

GPT-5.6 Terra

text

OpenAI model catalog

Inkling-Small

Not sourced

Provider availability

GPT-5.6 Terra

Generally Available · OpenAI Responses API

OpenAI model catalog

Inkling-Small

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

GPT-5.6 Terra

Reasoning

Inkling-Small

Hybrid

Weight access

GPT-5.6 Terra

Proprietary

Inkling-Small

Open Weight

License

GPT-5.6 Terra

Proprietary

Inkling-Small

Open Weight

Release date

GPT-5.6 Terra

2026-07-09

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: GPT-5.6 Terra has the higher public score estimate, 69.81 versus 49.5, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
Workload cost: Repository review: $0.136 vs $0.03332. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.2 vs $0.0492.
Context tradeoff: GPT-5.6 Terra has the larger documented window (1.05M).

Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Questions

Which is better, GPT-5.6 Terra or Inkling-Small?

GPT-5.6 Terra has the higher public score estimate, 69.81 versus 49.5, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.

Which is better for coding, GPT-5.6 Terra or Inkling-Small?

GPT-5.6 Terra has the higher public coding point estimate, 62 to 36.9, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.

Which is better for agentic tasks, GPT-5.6 Terra or Inkling-Small?

GPT-5.6 Terra has the higher public agentic tasks point estimate, 60.9 to 36.1, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.

Which costs less, GPT-5.6 Terra or Inkling-Small?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.008 on GPT-5.6 Terra and $0.0013 on Inkling-Small; repository review costs $0.136 and $0.03332; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.2 and $0.0492. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Which has the larger context window, GPT-5.6 Terra or Inkling-Small?

GPT-5.6 Terra has the larger documented context window: 1.05M, compared with 1M.

Benchmark evidence

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

Browse raw public benchmark evidence49 rows

Agentic

Terminal-Bench 3.0
GPT-5.6 Terra20.8%
Source
Inkling-Small—
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
GPT-5.6 Terra87.4%
Source
Inkling-Small64.7%
Source
GPT-5.6 Terra leads this result
BrowseComp
GPT-5.6 Terra87.5%
Source
Inkling-Small77.4%
Source
GPT-5.6 Terra leads this result
OSWorld 2.0
GPT-5.6 Terra50.2%
Source
Inkling-Small—
Not directly comparable
CyberGym
GPT-5.6 Terra81.8%
Source
Inkling-Small—
Not directly comparable
ExploitGym
GPT-5.6 Terra23.2%
Source
Inkling-Small—
Not directly comparable
Toolathlon
GPT-5.6 Terra53.1%
Source
Inkling-Small—
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
GPT-5.6 Terra77.5%
Source
Inkling-Small55.1%
Source
GPT-5.6 Terra leads this result
ApprenticeBench
GPT-5.6 Terra16%
Source
Inkling-Small—
Not directly comparable
MazeBench
GPT-5.6 Terra6%
Source
Inkling-Small—
Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
GPT-5.6 Terra—
Inkling-Small79.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
GPT-5.6 Terra—
Inkling-Small54.4%
Source
Not directly comparable

Coding

SWE-bench Pro
GPT-5.6 Terra63.4%
Source
Inkling-Small55.9%
Source
GPT-5.6 Terra leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.1
GPT-5.6 Terra87.4%
Source
Inkling-Small64.7%
Source
GPT-5.6 Terra leads this result
DeepSWE
GPT-5.6 Terra69.6%
Source
Inkling-Small—
Not directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Extended
GPT-5.6 Terra55.8%
Source
Inkling-Small—
Not directly comparable
CursorBench 3.2
GPT-5.6 Terra64.9%
Source
Inkling-Small—
Not directly comparable
VulcanBench v3
GPT-5.6 Terra87.0%
Source
Inkling-Small—
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
GPT-5.6 Terra85.9%
Source
Inkling-Small85.9%
Source
Tie
SWE-bench (Vals)
GPT-5.6 Terra95.4%
Source
Inkling-Small82.2%
Source
GPT-5.6 Terra leads this result
CursorBench 4.0
GPT-5.6 Terra41.3%
Source
Inkling-Small—
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
GPT-5.6 Terra—
Inkling-Small80.2%
Source
Not directly comparable
SciCode
GPT-5.6 Terra—
Inkling-Small48.7%
Source
Not directly comparable

Reasoning

ARC-AGI-2
GPT-5.6 Terra83.9%
Source
Inkling-Small40.1%
Source
GPT-5.6 Terra leads this result
ARC-AGI-3
GPT-5.6 Terra0.8%
Source
Inkling-Small—
Not directly comparable
ARC-AGI-1
GPT-5.6 Terra96.50%
Source
Inkling-Small84.00%
Source
GPT-5.6 Terra leads this result
CritPt
GPT-5.6 Terra—
Inkling-Small8.3%
Source
Not directly comparable

Multimodal

ExtractBench (LlamaIndex)
GPT-5.6 Terra92.26%
Source
Inkling-Small—
Not directly comparable
ParseBench
GPT-5.6 Terra67.11%
Source
Inkling-Small—
Not directly comparable
MMMU-Pro
GPT-5.6 Terra80.7%
Source
Inkling-Small74%
Source
GPT-5.6 Terra leads this result
MMMU-Pro w/ Python
GPT-5.6 Terra82%
Source
Inkling-Small—
Not directly comparable
CharXiv
GPT-5.6 Terra—
Inkling-Small81.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
CharXiv w/o tools
GPT-5.6 Terra—
Inkling-Small77.4%
Source
Not directly comparable

Knowledge

GPQA
GPT-5.6 Terra92.9%
Source
Inkling-Small89.5%
Source
GPT-5.6 Terra leads this result
GPQA-D
GPT-5.6 Terra92.9%
Source
Inkling-Small89.5%
Source
GPT-5.6 Terra leads this result
HLE-Verified
GPT-5.6 Terra51.1%
Source
Inkling-Small—
Not directly comparable
LABBench2
GPT-5.6 Terra81.2%
Source
Inkling-Small—
Not directly comparable
HealthBench Professional
GPT-5.6 Terra57.7%
Source
Inkling-Small—
Not directly comparable
HealthBench Hard
GPT-5.6 Terra32.7%
Source
Inkling-Small—
Not directly comparable
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
GPT-5.6 Terra90.9%
Source
Inkling-Small83.6%
Source
GPT-5.6 Terra leads this result
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
GPT-5.6 Terra86.7%
Source
Inkling-Small85.6%
Source
GPT-5.6 Terra leads this result
HLE
GPT-5.6 Terra—
Inkling-Small47.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
GPT-5.6 Terra—
Inkling-Small31.6%
Source
Not directly comparable

Instruction following

IFBench
GPT-5.6 Terra—
Inkling-Small82.2%
Source
Not directly comparable

Math

FrontierMath (legacy)
GPT-5.6 Terra84.9%
Source
Inkling-Small—
Not directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
GPT-5.6 Terra84.900%
Source
Inkling-Small46.316%
Source
GPT-5.6 Terra leads this result
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
GPT-5.6 Terra68.300%
Source
Inkling-Small17.073%
Source
GPT-5.6 Terra leads this result
AIME26
GPT-5.6 Terra—
Inkling-Small95.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2026
GPT-5.6 Terra—
Inkling-Small90.2%
Source
Not directly comparable

49 public results · 16 shared

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Watch GPT-5.6 Terra vs Inkling-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 October 29, 2026

GPT-5.6 Terra vs Inkling-Small

Decision reading

Which one for your work

Coding work

Agentic work

Long documents

Chat turn cost

Cache-heavy agent loop cost

Repository review cost

Which one for a specific job

What is actually comparable

Shape of the matched evidence

Category results, on a stated basis

Agentic

Coding

Knowledge

Multimodal

Instruction following

Reasoning

Multilingual

Math

What each workload costs

Chat turn

Repository review

Cache-heavy agent loop

Specification differences

Context window

API model ID

Cached-input rate

Documented inputs

Documented outputs

Provider availability

Reasoning profile

Weight access

License

Release date

If you already use one of these models

Questions

Which is better, GPT-5.6 Terra or Inkling-Small?

Which is better for coding, GPT-5.6 Terra or Inkling-Small?

Which is better for agentic tasks, GPT-5.6 Terra or Inkling-Small?

Which costs less, GPT-5.6 Terra or Inkling-Small?

Which has the larger context window, GPT-5.6 Terra or Inkling-Small?

Benchmark evidence

Agentic

Coding

Reasoning

Multimodal

Knowledge

Instruction following

Math

Related comparisons

Watch GPT-5.6 Terra vs Inkling-Small