Agentic
Not comparable- Hy-MT1.5-1.8B-1.25bit
- Not measured
- Inkling-Small
- 70.1
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Model comparison
Hy-MT1.5-1.8B-1.25bit vs Inkling-Small
Updated July 30, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
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.
20 Inkling-Small only
- Shared results
- 0
- Hy-MT1.5-1.8B-1.25bit only
- 0
- 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.
Coding
Not comparable- Hy-MT1.5-1.8B-1.25bit
- Not measured
- Inkling-Small
- 62.4
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 3 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Hy-MT1.5-1.8B-1.25bit
- Not measured
- Inkling-Small
- 40.1
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Hy-MT1.5-1.8B-1.25bit
- Not measured
- Inkling-Small
- 53.4
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Hy-MT1.5-1.8B-1.25bit
- Not measured
- Inkling-Small
- 92.9
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Hy-MT1.5-1.8B-1.25bit
- Not measured
- Inkling-Small
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Hy-MT1.5-1.8B-1.25bit
- Not measured
- Inkling-Small
- 76.6
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Hy-MT1.5-1.8B-1.25bit
- Not measured
- Inkling-Small
- 82.2
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Hy-MT1.5-1.8B-1.25bit | Inkling-Small | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Not measured | 70.1 | Not comparable0 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | Not measured | 62.4 | Not comparable0 vs 3 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not measured | 40.1 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not measured | 53.4 | Not comparable0 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not measured | 92.9 | Not comparable0 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not measured | 76.6 | Not comparable0 vs 2 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.
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
- Hy-MT1.5-1.8B-1.25bit
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
- Inkling-Small
- $0.0013
- Fits in one request
Hy-MT1.5-1.8B-1.25bit has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Hy-MT1.5-1.8B-1.25bit
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
- Inkling-Small
- $0.03332
- Fits in one request
Hy-MT1.5-1.8B-1.25bit has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Hy-MT1.5-1.8B-1.25bit
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
- Inkling-Small
- $0.0492
- Fits in one request
Hy-MT1.5-1.8B-1.25bit 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.
SpecificationHy-MT1.5-1.8B-1.25bitInkling-Small
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Hy-MT1.5-1.8B-1.25bit
262K
Inkling-Small
1M
API model ID
Hy-MT1.5-1.8B-1.25bit
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.
Hy-MT1.5-1.8B-1.25bit
No comparable hosted API rate
Inkling-Small
$0.116 per 1M cached input tokens
Documented inputs
Hy-MT1.5-1.8B-1.25bit
Not sourced
Inkling-Small
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Hy-MT1.5-1.8B-1.25bit
Not sourced
Inkling-Small
Not sourced
Provider availability
Hy-MT1.5-1.8B-1.25bit
Not sourced
Inkling-Small
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Hy-MT1.5-1.8B-1.25bit
Non-Reasoning
Inkling-Small
Hybrid
Weight access
Hy-MT1.5-1.8B-1.25bit
Open Weight
Inkling-Small
Open Weight
License
Hy-MT1.5-1.8B-1.25bit
Open Weight
Inkling-Small
Open Weight
Release date
Hy-MT1.5-1.8B-1.25bit
2026-04-29
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 evidence20 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Hy-MT1.5-1.8B-1.25bit—Inkling-Small64.7%SourceNot directly comparable
BrowseComp
Hy-MT1.5-1.8B-1.25bit—Inkling-Small77.4%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Hy-MT1.5-1.8B-1.25bit—Inkling-Small79.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
Hy-MT1.5-1.8B-1.25bit—Inkling-Small54.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Hy-MT1.5-1.8B-1.25bit—Inkling-Small80.2%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Hy-MT1.5-1.8B-1.25bit—Inkling-Small55.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Hy-MT1.5-1.8B-1.25bit—Inkling-Small64.7%SourceNot directly comparable
SciCode
Hy-MT1.5-1.8B-1.25bit—Inkling-Small48.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Knowledge
GPQA
Hy-MT1.5-1.8B-1.25bit—Inkling-Small89.5%SourceNot directly comparable
GPQA-D
Hy-MT1.5-1.8B-1.25bit—Inkling-Small89.5%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE
Hy-MT1.5-1.8B-1.25bit—Inkling-Small47.8%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Hy-MT1.5-1.8B-1.25bit—Inkling-Small31.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
Multimodal
Instruction following
IFBench
Hy-MT1.5-1.8B-1.25bit—Inkling-Small82.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Hy-MT1.5-1.8B-1.25bit 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, Hy-MT1.5-1.8B-1.25bit 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, Hy-MT1.5-1.8B-1.25bit 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, Hy-MT1.5-1.8B-1.25bit 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, Hy-MT1.5-1.8B-1.25bit or Inkling-Small?
Inkling-Small has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 262K.
Related comparisons
Last updated July 30, 2026
Watch Hy-MT1.5-1.8B-1.25bit 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.