Agentic
Directional only- Inkling-Small
- 70.1
- Laguna S 2.1
- 70.2
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Model comparison
Inkling-Small vs Laguna S 2.1
Updated July 30, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
4 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
Laguna S 2.1
Laguna S 2.1 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
Laguna S 2.1
Laguna S 2.1 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
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Laguna S 2.1
Laguna S 2.1 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
The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.
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.
16 Inkling-Small only
4 Shared
2 Laguna S 2.1 only
- Shared results
- 4
- Inkling-Small only
- 16
- Laguna S 2.1 only
- 2
- 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.
Coding
Directional only- Inkling-Small
- 62.4
- Laguna S 2.1
- 59.4
- Weighted basis
- 3 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Inkling-Small
- 40.1
- Laguna S 2.1
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Inkling-Small
- 53.4
- Laguna S 2.1
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Inkling-Small
- 92.9
- Laguna S 2.1
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Inkling-Small
- Not measured
- Laguna S 2.1
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Inkling-Small
- 76.6
- Laguna S 2.1
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Inkling-Small
- 82.2
- Laguna S 2.1
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Inkling-Small | Laguna S 2.1 | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 70.1 | 70.2 | Directional only2 vs 1 rows | Directional only |
| Coding | 62.4 | 59.4 | Directional only3 vs 1 rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 40.1 | Not measured | Not comparable1 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | 53.4 | Not measured | Not comparable2 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 92.9 | Not measured | Not comparable2 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 76.6 | Not measured | Not comparable2 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | 82.2 | Not measured | Not comparable1 vs 0 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.
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.
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Agentic
SWE-bench Pro
Coding
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
- Laguna S 2.1
- $0.0002
- Fits in one request
Laguna S 2.1 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
- Laguna S 2.1
- $0.0056
- Fits in one request
Laguna S 2.1 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
- Laguna S 2.1
- $0.006
- Fits in one request
Laguna S 2.1 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationInkling-SmallLaguna S 2.1
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Inkling-Small
1M
Laguna S 2.1
1M
API model ID
Inkling-Small
Not sourced
Laguna S 2.1
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
Laguna S 2.1
$0.01 per 1M cached input tokens
Documented inputs
Inkling-Small
Not sourced
Laguna S 2.1
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Inkling-Small
Not sourced
Laguna S 2.1
Not sourced
Provider availability
Inkling-Small
Not sourced
Laguna S 2.1
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Inkling-Small
Hybrid
Laguna S 2.1
Reasoning
Weight access
Inkling-Small
Open Weight
Laguna S 2.1
Open Weight
License
Inkling-Small
Open Weight
Laguna S 2.1
Open Weight
Release date
Inkling-Small
2026-07-30
Laguna S 2.1
2026-07-21
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 $0.0056. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.0492 vs $0.006.
- 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 evidence22 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Inkling-Small64.7%SourceLaguna S 2.170.2%SourceLaguna S 2.1 leads this result
BrowseComp
Inkling-Small77.4%SourceLaguna S 2.1—Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Inkling-Small79.6%SourceLaguna S 2.1—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
Inkling-Small54.4%SourceLaguna S 2.149.7%SourceInkling-Small leads this result
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Inkling-Small80.2%SourceLaguna S 2.1—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Inkling-Small55.9%SourceLaguna S 2.159.4%SourceLaguna S 2.1 leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Inkling-Small64.7%SourceLaguna S 2.170.2%SourceLaguna S 2.1 leads this result
SciCode
Inkling-Small48.7%SourceLaguna S 2.1—Not directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
Inkling-Small—Laguna S 2.178.5%SourceNot directly comparable
deepSwe
Inkling-Small—Laguna S 2.140.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Knowledge
Math
Multimodal
Instruction following
IFBench
Inkling-Small82.2%SourceLaguna S 2.1—Not directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Inkling-Small or Laguna S 2.1?
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 Laguna S 2.1?
The current coding averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Inkling-Small or Laguna S 2.1?
The current agentic tasks averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which costs less, Inkling-Small or Laguna S 2.1?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0013 on Inkling-Small and $0.0002 on Laguna S 2.1; repository review costs $0.03332 and $0.0056; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.0492 and $0.006. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Which has the larger context window, Inkling-Small or Laguna S 2.1?
Both models list the same context window, 1M.
Related comparisons
Last updated July 30, 2026
Watch Inkling-Small vs Laguna S 2.1
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.