Agentic
Like-for-like- Inkling
- 69.4
- Inkling-Small
- 70.1
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Inkling-Small leads
Model comparison
Inkling vs Inkling-Small
Updated July 30, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload. This is a same-family comparison, so migration details appear when the source data supports them.
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
15 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
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. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
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
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.
15 Shared
5 Inkling-Small only
- Shared results
- 15
- Inkling only
- 0
- Inkling-Small only
- 5
- Like-for-like categories
- 4 / 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
Like-for-like- Inkling
- 51.6
- Inkling-Small
- 53.4
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Inkling-Small leads
Multimodal
Like-for-like- Inkling
- 76.5
- Inkling-Small
- 76.6
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Inkling-Small leads
Instruction following
Like-for-like- Inkling
- 79.8
- Inkling-Small
- 82.2
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Inkling-Small leads
Coding
Directional only- Inkling
- 68.6
- Inkling-Small
- 62.4
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 3 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Math
Directional only- Inkling
- 97.1
- Inkling-Small
- 92.9
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Inkling
- Not measured
- Inkling-Small
- 40.1
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Inkling
- Not measured
- Inkling-Small
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Inkling | Inkling-Small | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 69.4 | 70.1 | Like-for-like2 vs 2 rows | Inkling-Small leads |
| Knowledge | 51.6 | 53.4 | Like-for-like2 vs 2 rows | Inkling-Small leads |
| Multimodal | 76.5 | 76.6 | Like-for-like2 vs 2 rows | Inkling-Small leads |
| Instruction following | 79.8 | 82.2 | Like-for-like1 vs 1 rows | Inkling-Small leads |
| Coding | 68.6 | 62.4 | Directional only2 vs 3 rows | Directional only |
| Math | 97.1 | 92.9 | Directional only1 vs 2 rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | Not measured | 40.1 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 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.
SWE-bench Verified
Coding
IFBench
Instruction following
HLE
Knowledge
SWE-bench Pro
Coding
GPQA
Knowledge
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
- $0.00421
- Fits in one request
- Inkling-Small
- $0.0013
- 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
- $0.10754
- Fits in one request
- Inkling-Small
- $0.03332
- 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
- $0.159
- Fits in one request
- Inkling-Small
- $0.0492
- Fits in one request
Inkling-Small 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.
SpecificationInklingInkling-Small
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Inkling
1M
Inkling-Small
1M
API model ID
Inkling
Not sourced
Inkling-Small
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Inkling
$0.374 per 1M cached input tokens
Inkling-Small
$0.116 per 1M cached input tokens
Documented inputs
Inkling
Not sourced
Inkling-Small
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Inkling
Not sourced
Inkling-Small
Not sourced
Provider availability
Inkling
Not sourced
Inkling-Small
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Inkling
Hybrid
Inkling-Small
Hybrid
Weight access
Inkling
Open Weight
Inkling-Small
Open Weight
License
Inkling
Open Weight
Inkling-Small
Open Weight
Release date
Inkling
2026-07-15
Inkling-Small
2026-07-30
If you are choosing between sibling variants
- Deployment change
- Both entries list Thinking Machines Lab as the provider. Confirm endpoint, model ID, limits, and feature support before switching.
- 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: $0.10754 vs $0.03332. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.159 vs $0.0492.
- 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
Inkling63.8%SourceInkling-Small64.7%SourceInkling-Small leads this result
BrowseComp
Inkling77.1%SourceInkling-Small77.4%SourceInkling-Small leads this result
MCP Atlas
Inkling74.1%SourceInkling-Small79.6%SourceInkling-Small leads this result
Toolathlon-Verified
Inkling—Inkling-Small54.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Inkling77.6%SourceInkling-Small80.2%SourceInkling-Small leads this result
SWE-bench Pro
Inkling54.3%SourceInkling-Small55.9%SourceInkling-Small leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Inkling63.8%SourceInkling-Small64.7%SourceInkling-Small leads this result
SciCode
Inkling—Inkling-Small48.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Knowledge
GPQA
Inkling87.9%SourceInkling-Small89.5%SourceInkling-Small leads this result
GPQA-D
Inkling87.9%SourceInkling-Small89.5%SourceInkling-Small leads this result
HLE
Inkling46%SourceInkling-Small47.8%SourceInkling-Small leads this result
HLE w/o tools
Inkling30%SourceInkling-Small31.6%SourceInkling-Small leads this result
Math
Multimodal
Instruction following
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Inkling or Inkling-Small?
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 or Inkling-Small?
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 or Inkling-Small?
Inkling-Small leads the like-for-like agentic tasks comparison across 2 shared weighted benchmark rows.
Which costs less, Inkling or Inkling-Small?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.00421 on Inkling and $0.0013 on Inkling-Small; repository review costs $0.10754 and $0.03332; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.159 and $0.0492. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Which has the larger context window, Inkling or Inkling-Small?
Both models list the same context window, 1M.
Related comparisons
Last updated July 30, 2026
Watch Inkling vs Inkling-Small
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.