Skip to main content

Model comparison

Holo3.1-9B vs Inkling-Small

Updated July 30, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Holo3.1-9B

H Company

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

Inkling-Small

Thinking Machines Lab

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. Use the documented cost, context, and runtime rows instead.

0 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

    Inkling-Small

    Inkling-Small has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented

Show secondary and unsupported calls
  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

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

    Not enough matched evidence

    No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.

    Confidence: limited

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

    200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

What is actually comparable

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

Shared results
0
Holo3.1-9B only
1
Inkling-Small only
20
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

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.

Agentic

Not comparable
Holo3.1-9B
Not measured
Inkling-Small
70.1
Weighted basis
0 vs 2 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
Holo3.1-9B
Not measured
Inkling-Small
62.4
Weighted basis
0 vs 3 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Holo3.1-9B
Not measured
Inkling-Small
40.1
Weighted basis
0 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
Holo3.1-9B
Not measured
Inkling-Small
53.4
Weighted basis
0 vs 2 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Holo3.1-9B
Not measured
Inkling-Small
92.9
Weighted basis
0 vs 2 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Holo3.1-9B
Not measured
Inkling-Small
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Holo3.1-9B
Not measured
Inkling-Small
76.6
Weighted basis
0 vs 2 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Holo3.1-9B
Not measured
Inkling-Small
82.2
Weighted basis
0 vs 1 rows
Reading
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.

A shared-evidence shape is not available.

BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.

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

Holo3.1-9B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request
Inkling-Small
$0.0013
Fits in one request

Holo3.1-9B has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Holo3.1-9B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request
Inkling-Small
$0.03332
Fits in one request

Holo3.1-9B has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

Holo3.1-9B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable
Inkling-Small
$0.0492
Fits in one request

Holo3.1-9B has no comparable published API token rate.

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

Context window

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

Holo3.1-9B

262K

Inkling-Small

1M

API model ID

Holo3.1-9B

Not sourced

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.

Holo3.1-9B

No comparable hosted API rate

Inkling-Small

$0.116 per 1M cached input tokens

Documented inputs

Holo3.1-9B

Not sourced

Inkling-Small

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Holo3.1-9B

Not sourced

Inkling-Small

Not sourced

Provider availability

Holo3.1-9B

Not sourced

Inkling-Small

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Holo3.1-9B

Non-Reasoning

Inkling-Small

Hybrid

Weight access

Holo3.1-9B

Open Weight

Inkling-Small

Open Weight

License

Holo3.1-9B

Open Weight

Inkling-Small

Open Weight

Release date

Holo3.1-9B

2026-06-01

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
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
Inkling-Small has the larger documented window (1M).

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 evidence21 rows

Agentic

  • AndroidWorld

    Holo3.1-9B71.0%
    Source
    Inkling-Small

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Holo3.1-9B
    Inkling-Small64.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BrowseComp

    Holo3.1-9B
    Inkling-Small77.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    Holo3.1-9B
    Inkling-Small79.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon-Verified

    Holo3.1-9B
    Inkling-Small54.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Holo3.1-9B
    Inkling-Small80.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Holo3.1-9B
    Inkling-Small55.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Holo3.1-9B
    Inkling-Small64.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SciCode

    Holo3.1-9B
    Inkling-Small48.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • ARC-AGI-2

    Holo3.1-9B
    Inkling-Small40.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CritPt

    Holo3.1-9B
    Inkling-Small8.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA

    Holo3.1-9B
    Inkling-Small89.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA-D

    Holo3.1-9B
    Inkling-Small89.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE

    Holo3.1-9B
    Inkling-Small47.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/o tools

    Holo3.1-9B
    Inkling-Small31.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • AIME26

    Holo3.1-9B
    Inkling-Small95.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Feb 2026

    Holo3.1-9B
    Inkling-Small90.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • MMMU-Pro

    Holo3.1-9B
    Inkling-Small74%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv

    Holo3.1-9B
    Inkling-Small81.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv w/o tools

    Holo3.1-9B
    Inkling-Small77.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • IFBench

    Holo3.1-9B
    Inkling-Small82.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Holo3.1-9B or Inkling-Small?

The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, Holo3.1-9B or Inkling-Small?

The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Holo3.1-9B or Inkling-Small?

The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.

Which costs less, Holo3.1-9B or Inkling-Small?

Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.

Which has the larger context window, Holo3.1-9B or Inkling-Small?

Inkling-Small has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 262K.

Related comparisons

Last updated July 30, 2026

Watch Holo3.1-9B vs Inkling-Small

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.