Agentic
Like-for-like- Inkling-Small
- 70.1
- Step 3.7 Flash
- 66.4
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Inkling-Small leads
Model comparison
Inkling-Small vs Step 3.7 Flash
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.
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Inkling-Small
Inkling-Small leads on the same 2 weighted benchmark rows.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Inkling-Small
Inkling-Small has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Step 3.7 Flash
Step 3.7 Flash 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-Small
Inkling-Small has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Step 3.7 Flash has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Step 3.7 Flash
Step 3.7 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
The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
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
7 Step 3.7 Flash only
- Shared results
- 4
- Inkling-Small only
- 16
- Step 3.7 Flash only
- 7
- Like-for-like categories
- 1 / 8
1 category uses 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
- Step 3.7 Flash
- 56.3
- Weighted basis
- 3 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Inkling-Small
- 40.1
- Step 3.7 Flash
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Inkling-Small
- 53.4
- Step 3.7 Flash
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Inkling-Small
- 92.9
- Step 3.7 Flash
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Inkling-Small
- Not measured
- Step 3.7 Flash
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Inkling-Small
- 76.6
- Step 3.7 Flash
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Inkling-Small
- 82.2
- Step 3.7 Flash
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Inkling-Small | Step 3.7 Flash | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 70.1 | 66.4 | Like-for-like2 vs 2 rows | Inkling-Small leads |
| Coding | 62.4 | 56.3 | 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
Inkling-Small: 64.7%Step 3.7 Flash: 59.5%Normalized gap 5.2Inkling-Small source Step 3.7 Flash sourceBrowseComp
Agentic
Inkling-Small: 77.4%Step 3.7 Flash: 75.8%Normalized gap 1.6Inkling-Small source Step 3.7 Flash sourceSWE-bench Pro
Coding
Inkling-Small: 55.9%Step 3.7 Flash: 56.3%Normalized gap 0.4Inkling-Small source Step 3.7 Flash source
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
- Step 3.7 Flash
- $0.00077
- Fits in one request
Step 3.7 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
- Step 3.7 Flash
- $0.01345
- Fits in one request
Step 3.7 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
- Step 3.7 Flash
- $0.0555
- Fits in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Inkling-Small has the lower modeled cost
Step 3.7 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-SmallStep 3.7 Flash
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Inkling-Small
1M
Step 3.7 Flash
256K
API model ID
Inkling-Small
Not sourced
Step 3.7 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
Step 3.7 Flash
Not published
Documented inputs
Inkling-Small
Not sourced
Step 3.7 Flash
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Inkling-Small
Not sourced
Step 3.7 Flash
Not sourced
Provider availability
Inkling-Small
Not sourced
Step 3.7 Flash
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Inkling-Small
Hybrid
Step 3.7 Flash
Reasoning
Weight access
Inkling-Small
Open Weight
Step 3.7 Flash
Open Weight
License
Inkling-Small
Open Weight
Step 3.7 Flash
Open Weight
Release date
Inkling-Small
2026-07-30
Step 3.7 Flash
2026-05-29
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 $0.01345. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.0492 vs $0.0555.
- 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 evidence27 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Inkling-Small64.7%SourceStep 3.7 Flash59.5%SourceInkling-Small leads this result
BrowseComp
Inkling-Small77.4%SourceStep 3.7 Flash75.8%SourceInkling-Small leads this result
MCP Atlas
Inkling-Small79.6%SourceStep 3.7 Flash—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
Inkling-Small54.4%SourceStep 3.7 Flash—Not directly comparable
DeepSearchQA
Inkling-Small—Step 3.7 Flash92.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon
Inkling-Small—Step 3.7 Flash49.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Inkling-Small—Step 3.7 Flash67.1%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE w/ tools
Inkling-Small—Step 3.7 Flash47.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Gert Labs
Inkling-Small—Step 3.7 Flash51.57%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Inkling-Small80.2%SourceStep 3.7 Flash—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Inkling-Small55.9%SourceStep 3.7 Flash56.3%SourceStep 3.7 Flash leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Inkling-Small64.7%SourceStep 3.7 Flash59.5%SourceInkling-Small leads this result
SciCode
Inkling-Small48.7%SourceStep 3.7 Flash—Not directly comparable
Reasoning
Knowledge
Math
Multimodal
MMMU-Pro
Inkling-Small74%SourceStep 3.7 Flash—Not directly comparable
CharXiv
Inkling-Small81.3%SourceStep 3.7 Flash—Not directly comparable
CharXiv w/o tools
Inkling-Small77.4%SourceStep 3.7 Flash—Not directly comparable
SimpleVQA
Inkling-Small—Step 3.7 Flash79.2%SourceNot directly comparable
V*
Inkling-Small—Step 3.7 Flash95.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Instruction following
IFBench
Inkling-Small82.2%SourceStep 3.7 Flash—Not directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Inkling-Small or Step 3.7 Flash?
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 Step 3.7 Flash?
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 Step 3.7 Flash?
Inkling-Small leads the like-for-like agentic tasks comparison across 2 shared weighted benchmark rows.
Which costs less, Inkling-Small or Step 3.7 Flash?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0013 on Inkling-Small and $0.00077 on Step 3.7 Flash; repository review costs $0.03332 and $0.01345; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.0492 and $0.0555. Step 3.7 Flash has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, Inkling-Small or Step 3.7 Flash?
Inkling-Small has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 256K.
Related comparisons
Last updated July 30, 2026
Watch Inkling-Small vs Step 3.7 Flash
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.