Skip to main content
BenchLM
Data

Inkling 2 Small vs MiniMax M3

Updated November 7, 2026. Rank says Inkling 2 Small is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Share or export
Share on XLinkedInAPI/MCP

Decision reading

Inkling 2 Small has the higher public point estimate, 59.06 versus 49.27. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. 5 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Model A
Thinking Machines Lab logo
Inkling 2 Small

Thinking Machines Lab

59.06/100

Estimated · Public rank #56

Conditional range 44.7–73.4

Model B
MiniMax logo
MiniMax M3

MiniMax

49.27/100

Supported · Public rank #101

90% interval 34.0–64.5

Shared results
5
Inkling 2 Small only
20
MiniMax M3 only
23
Like-for-like categories
2 / 8
Estimated: Inkling 2 Small · Supported: MiniMax M3. Conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.How 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

    Inkling 2 Small

    Inkling 2 Small has the higher public coding point estimate, 59.7 to 37.7, 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

    Inkling 2 Small

    Inkling 2 Small has the higher public agentic point estimate, 59.9 to 39, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.

    Confidence: limited

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Inkling 2 Small

    Inkling 2 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

  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

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

    Inkling 2 Small

    Inkling 2 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 2 Small

    Inkling 2 Small has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    No clear pick

    The documented context windows are equal.

    Confidence: documented

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.

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

59.7Inkling 2 Small37.7MiniMax M3

Like-for-like · BenchAlign v5.8

Inkling 2 Small 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 leaderboardShortlist models for this job
Same basis rules as the category table below

What is actually comparable

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

2 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

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.

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
Inkling 2 Small
59.9
Supported · #26/131
MiniMax M3
39.0
Supported · #73/131
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 5 vs 10 public rows
Reading
Inkling 2 Small leads · intervals overlap

Coding

Like-for-like
Inkling 2 Small
59.7
Supported · #20/157
MiniMax M3
37.7
Supported · #76/157
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 6 vs 10 public rows
Reading
Inkling 2 Small leads · intervals overlap

Multimodal

Directional only
Inkling 2 Small
86.6
#12/59
MiniMax M3
58.3
#48/59
Basis
Provisional lane · 1 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading
Directional only

Knowledge

Directional only
Inkling 2 Small
60.4
Estimated · #46/178
MiniMax M3
55.0
Supported · #61/178
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 2 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable
Inkling 2 Small
86.1
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
MiniMax M3
80.3
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Inkling 2 Small
Not ranked
MiniMax M3
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Inkling 2 Small
Not ranked
MiniMax M3
93.8
#6/157
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Inkling 2 Small
85.9
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
MiniMax M3
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
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

Inkling 2 Small
$0.0008
Fits in one request
MiniMax M3
$0.0009
Fits in one request

Inkling 2 Small has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Inkling 2 Small
$0.018
Fits in one request
MiniMax M3
$0.0186
Fits in one request

Inkling 2 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

Inkling 2 Small
$0.022
Fits in one request
MiniMax M3
$0.03
Fits in one request

Inkling 2 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.

Context window

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

Inkling 2 Small

1M

Tinker models and pricing

MiniMax M3

1M

API model ID

Inkling 2 Small

Not sourced

MiniMax M3

Not sourced

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

Inkling 2 Small

$0.03 per 1M cached input tokens

Tinker models and pricing

MiniMax M3

$0.06 per 1M cached input tokens

Documented inputs

Inkling 2 Small

Not sourced

MiniMax M3

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Inkling 2 Small

Not sourced

MiniMax M3

Not sourced

Provider availability

Inkling 2 Small

Not sourced

MiniMax M3

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Inkling 2 Small

Hybrid

MiniMax M3

Non-Reasoning

Weight access

Inkling 2 Small

Proprietary

MiniMax M3

Open Weight

License

Inkling 2 Small

Proprietary

MiniMax M3

Open Weight

Release date

Inkling 2 Small

2026-11-05

MiniMax M3

2026-06-01

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
Inkling 2 Small has the higher public point estimate, 59.06 versus 49.27. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Workload cost
Repository review: $0.018 vs $0.0186. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.022 vs $0.03.
Context tradeoff
Both models list 1M.
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Questions

Which is better, Inkling 2 Small or MiniMax M3?

Inkling 2 Small has the higher public point estimate, 59.06 versus 49.27. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, Inkling 2 Small or MiniMax M3?

Inkling 2 Small has the higher public coding point estimate, 59.7 to 37.7, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Inkling 2 Small or MiniMax M3?

Inkling 2 Small has the higher public agentic tasks point estimate, 59.9 to 39, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.

Which costs less, Inkling 2 Small or MiniMax M3?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0008 on Inkling 2 Small and $0.0009 on MiniMax M3; repository review costs $0.018 and $0.0186; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.022 and $0.03. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Which has the larger context window, Inkling 2 Small or MiniMax M3?

Both models list the same context window, 1M.

Self-host vs API cost

Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.

Inkling 2 Small
API / mo$975
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even—
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
MiniMax M3
API / mo$1,125
Self-host / mo$13,981
Break-even818M/day
Model the full break-even

Benchmark evidence

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

Browse raw public benchmark evidence48 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Inkling 2 Small85.1%
    Source
    MiniMax M366.0%
    Source

    Inkling 2 Small leads this result

  • BrowseComp

    Inkling 2 Small90.2%
    Source
    MiniMax M383.5%
    Source

    Inkling 2 Small leads this result

  • DeepSearchQA

    Inkling 2 Small90.9%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    Inkling 2 Small85%
    Source
    MiniMax M374.2%
    Source

    Inkling 2 Small leads this result

  • JobBench

    Inkling 2 Small70.5%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld-Verified

    Inkling 2 Small—
    MiniMax M370.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Claw-Eval

    Inkling 2 Small—
    MiniMax M374.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BankerToolBench

    Inkling 2 Small—
    MiniMax M376.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ResearchClawBench

    Inkling 2 Small—
    MiniMax M319.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld 2.0

    Inkling 2 Small—
    MiniMax M34.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)

    Inkling 2 Small—
    MiniMax M353.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MazeBench

    Inkling 2 Small—
    MiniMax M30%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Inkling 2 Small82.2%
    Source
    MiniMax M380.5%
    Source

    Inkling 2 Small leads this result

  • SWE Multilingual

    Inkling 2 Small81.2%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • sweMarathon

    Inkling 2 Small38.8%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Inkling 2 Small85.1%
    Source
    MiniMax M366.0%
    Source

    Inkling 2 Small leads this result

  • DeepSWE

    Inkling 2 Small72.1%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • PostTrainBench v1.2

    Inkling 2 Small31.9%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Inkling 2 Small—
    MiniMax M359%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • NL2Repo

    Inkling 2 Small—
    MiniMax M342.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • VIBE V2

    Inkling 2 Small—
    MiniMax M350.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SVG-Bench

    Inkling 2 Small—
    MiniMax M363.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • KernelBench Hard

    Inkling 2 Small—
    MiniMax M328.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OpenHarmony Bench

    Inkling 2 Small—
    MiniMax M348.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench (Vals)

    Inkling 2 Small—
    MiniMax M382.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench (Vals)

    Inkling 2 Small—
    MiniMax M375.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • LongBench v2

    Inkling 2 Small70.6%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • CharXiv

    Inkling 2 Small87.7%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv w/o tools

    Inkling 2 Small85.6%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • Chartography (no tools)

    Inkling 2 Small36.7%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • Chartography (tools)

    Inkling 2 Small80.4%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • BabyVision

    Inkling 2 Small68.6%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • BabyVision w/ Python

    Inkling 2 Small93.7%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • ScreenSpot Pro

    Inkling 2 Small83.8%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • PerceptionBench

    Inkling 2 Small64.7%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • MathVision

    Inkling 2 Small92.8%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • OfficeQA Pro

    Inkling 2 Small—
    MiniMax M345.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OmniDocBench 1.5

    Inkling 2 Small—
    MiniMax M391.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMMU-Pro

    Inkling 2 Small—
    MiniMax M378.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • VideoMMMU

    Inkling 2 Small—
    MiniMax M384.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Video-MME (with subtitle)

    Inkling 2 Small—
    MiniMax M385.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA

    Inkling 2 Small93%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA-D

    Inkling 2 Small93.0%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA Diamond (Vals)

    Inkling 2 Small—
    MiniMax M392.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro (Vals)

    Inkling 2 Small—
    MiniMax M384.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • HMMT Feb 2026

    Inkling 2 Small95.8%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • Apex

    Inkling 2 Small63.5%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • USAMO 2026

    Inkling 2 Small—
    MiniMax M385.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

48 public results · 5 shared

Related comparisons

Compare API pricingRead the methodologyOpen the model selector

Watch Inkling 2 Small vs MiniMax M3

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 November 7, 2026