Skip to main content

Model comparison

Inkling-Small vs Interfaze Beta

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

Inkling-Small

Thinking Machines Lab

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

Interfaze Beta

Interfaze

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.

3 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.

  • 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. Interfaze Beta has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

    Confidence: rate-fallback

Show secondary and unsupported calls
  • 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

  • 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

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    No clear pick

    The documented context windows are equal.

    Confidence: documented

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
3
Inkling-Small only
17
Interfaze Beta only
6
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

2 categories use different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

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.

Knowledge

Directional only
Inkling-Small
53.4
Interfaze Beta
89.9
Weighted basis
2 vs 1 rows
Reading
Directional only

Multimodal

Directional only
Inkling-Small
76.6
Interfaze Beta
71.1
Weighted basis
2 vs 1 rows
Reading
Directional only

Agentic

Not comparable
Inkling-Small
70.1
Interfaze Beta
Not measured
Weighted basis
2 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
Inkling-Small
62.4
Interfaze Beta
Not measured
Weighted basis
3 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Inkling-Small
40.1
Interfaze Beta
Not measured
Weighted basis
1 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Inkling-Small
92.9
Interfaze Beta
Not measured
Weighted basis
2 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Inkling-Small
Not measured
Interfaze Beta
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Inkling-Small
82.2
Interfaze Beta
Not measured
Weighted basis
1 vs 0 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.

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.

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-Small
$0.0013
Fits in one request
Interfaze Beta
$0.00325
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

Inkling-Small
$0.03332
Fits in one request
Interfaze Beta
$0.0855
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

Inkling-Small
$0.0492
Fits in one request
Interfaze Beta
$0.365
Fits in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate

Inkling-Small has the lower modeled cost

Interfaze Beta has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input 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.

Inkling-Small

1M

Interfaze Beta

1M

API model ID

Inkling-Small

Not sourced

Interfaze Beta

Not sourced

Cached-input rate

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

Inkling-Small

$0.116 per 1M cached input tokens

Interfaze Beta

Not published

Documented inputs

Inkling-Small

Not sourced

Interfaze Beta

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Inkling-Small

Not sourced

Interfaze Beta

Not sourced

Provider availability

Inkling-Small

Not sourced

Interfaze Beta

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Inkling-Small

Hybrid

Interfaze Beta

Reasoning

Weight access

Inkling-Small

Open Weight

Interfaze Beta

Proprietary

License

Inkling-Small

Open Weight

Interfaze Beta

Proprietary

Release date

Inkling-Small

2026-07-30

Interfaze Beta

2026-05-11

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
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
Workload cost
Repository review: $0.03332 vs $0.0855. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.0492 vs $0.365.
Context tradeoff
Both models list 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 evidence26 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Inkling-Small64.7%
    Source
    Interfaze Beta

    Not directly comparable

  • BrowseComp

    Inkling-Small77.4%
    Source
    Interfaze Beta

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    Inkling-Small79.6%
    Source
    Interfaze Beta

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon-Verified

    Inkling-Small54.4%
    Source
    Interfaze Beta

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Inkling-Small80.2%
    Source
    Interfaze Beta

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Inkling-Small55.9%
    Source
    Interfaze Beta

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Inkling-Small64.7%
    Source
    Interfaze Beta

    Not directly comparable

  • SciCode

    Inkling-Small48.7%
    Source
    Interfaze Beta

    Not directly comparable

  • Spider 2.0-Lite

    Inkling-Small
    Interfaze Beta52.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • ARC-AGI-2

    Inkling-Small40.1%
    Source
    Interfaze Beta

    Not directly comparable

  • CritPt

    Inkling-Small8.3%
    Source
    Interfaze Beta

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA

    Inkling-Small89.5%
    Source
    Interfaze Beta89.9%
    Source

    Interfaze Beta leads this result

  • GPQA-D

    Inkling-Small89.5%
    Source
    Interfaze Beta89.9%
    Source

    Interfaze Beta leads this result

  • HLE

    Inkling-Small47.8%
    Source
    Interfaze Beta

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/o tools

    Inkling-Small31.6%
    Source
    Interfaze Beta

    Not directly comparable

  • MMMLU

    Inkling-Small
    Interfaze Beta90.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • AIME26

    Inkling-Small95.5%
    Source
    Interfaze Beta

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Feb 2026

    Inkling-Small90.2%
    Source
    Interfaze Beta

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • MMMU-Pro

    Inkling-Small74%
    Source
    Interfaze Beta71.1%
    Source

    Inkling-Small leads this result

  • CharXiv

    Inkling-Small81.3%
    Source
    Interfaze Beta

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv w/o tools

    Inkling-Small77.4%
    Source
    Interfaze Beta

    Not directly comparable

  • OCRBench V2

    Inkling-Small
    Interfaze Beta70.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • olmOCR

    Inkling-Small
    Interfaze Beta85.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • RefCOCO (avg)

    Inkling-Small
    Interfaze Beta82.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • IFBench

    Inkling-Small82.2%
    Source
    Interfaze Beta

    Not directly comparable

  • SOB Value Acc

    Inkling-Small
    Interfaze Beta79.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Inkling-Small or Interfaze Beta?

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, Inkling-Small or Interfaze Beta?

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, Inkling-Small or Interfaze Beta?

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, Inkling-Small or Interfaze Beta?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0013 on Inkling-Small and $0.00325 on Interfaze Beta; repository review costs $0.03332 and $0.0855; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.0492 and $0.365. Interfaze Beta has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

Which has the larger context window, Inkling-Small or Interfaze Beta?

Both models list the same context window, 1M.

Related comparisons

Last updated July 30, 2026

Watch Inkling-Small vs Interfaze Beta

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

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.