Agentic
Not comparable- Inkling-Small
- 70.1
- Qwen3.7 Flash
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Model comparison
Inkling-Small vs Qwen3.7 Flash
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.
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Qwen3.7 Flash
Qwen3.7 Flash 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
Qwen3.7 Flash
Qwen3.7 Flash has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Qwen3.7 Flash 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
Qwen3.7 Flash
Qwen3.7 Flash 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.
20 Inkling-Small only
- Shared results
- 0
- Inkling-Small only
- 20
- Qwen3.7 Flash only
- 0
- 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- Inkling-Small
- 62.4
- Qwen3.7 Flash
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 3 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Inkling-Small
- 40.1
- Qwen3.7 Flash
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Inkling-Small
- 53.4
- Qwen3.7 Flash
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Inkling-Small
- 92.9
- Qwen3.7 Flash
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Inkling-Small
- Not measured
- Qwen3.7 Flash
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Inkling-Small
- 76.6
- Qwen3.7 Flash
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Inkling-Small
- 82.2
- Qwen3.7 Flash
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Inkling-Small | Qwen3.7 Flash | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 70.1 | Not measured | Not comparable2 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | 62.4 | Not measured | Not comparable3 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| 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.
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
- Inkling-Small
- $0.0013
- Fits in one request
- Qwen3.7 Flash
- $0.0001
- Fits in one request
Qwen3.7 Flash 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
- Qwen3.7 Flash
- $0.00189
- Fits in one request
Qwen3.7 Flash 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
- Qwen3.7 Flash
- $0.0079
- Fits in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Qwen3.7 Flash has the lower modeled cost
Qwen3.7 Flash 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.
SpecificationInkling-SmallQwen3.7 Flash
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Inkling-Small
1M
Qwen3.7 Flash
1M
API model ID
Inkling-Small
Not sourced
Qwen3.7 Flash
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
Qwen3.7 Flash
Not published
Documented inputs
Inkling-Small
Not sourced
Qwen3.7 Flash
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Inkling-Small
Not sourced
Qwen3.7 Flash
Not sourced
Provider availability
Inkling-Small
Not sourced
Qwen3.7 Flash
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Inkling-Small
Hybrid
Qwen3.7 Flash
Reasoning
Weight access
Inkling-Small
Open Weight
Qwen3.7 Flash
Proprietary
License
Inkling-Small
Open Weight
Qwen3.7 Flash
Proprietary
Release date
Inkling-Small
2026-07-30
Qwen3.7 Flash
2026-07-27
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
- Repository review: $0.03332 vs $0.00189. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.0492 vs $0.0079.
- 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 evidence20 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Inkling-Small64.7%SourceQwen3.7 Flash—Not directly comparable
BrowseComp
Inkling-Small77.4%SourceQwen3.7 Flash—Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Inkling-Small79.6%SourceQwen3.7 Flash—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
Inkling-Small54.4%SourceQwen3.7 Flash—Not directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Inkling-Small80.2%SourceQwen3.7 Flash—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Inkling-Small55.9%SourceQwen3.7 Flash—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Inkling-Small64.7%SourceQwen3.7 Flash—Not directly comparable
SciCode
Inkling-Small48.7%SourceQwen3.7 Flash—Not directly comparable
Reasoning
Knowledge
Math
Multimodal
Instruction following
IFBench
Inkling-Small82.2%SourceQwen3.7 Flash—Not directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Inkling-Small or Qwen3.7 Flash?
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, Inkling-Small or Qwen3.7 Flash?
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 Qwen3.7 Flash?
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 Qwen3.7 Flash?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0013 on Inkling-Small and $0.0001 on Qwen3.7 Flash; repository review costs $0.03332 and $0.00189; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.0492 and $0.0079. Qwen3.7 Flash has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, Inkling-Small or Qwen3.7 Flash?
Both models list the same context window, 1M.
Related comparisons
Last updated July 30, 2026
Watch Inkling-Small vs Qwen3.7 Flash
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.