Agentic
Like-for-like- Inkling
- 38.3
- Supported · #122/152
- Inkling-Small
- 36.9
- Supported · #128/152
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 4 vs 5 public rows
- Reading
- Inkling leads · intervals overlap
Inkling vs Inkling-Small
Updated September 10, 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.
Decision reading
Inkling has the higher public score estimate, 60.28 versus 59.25, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
20 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Share or export
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.
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Inkling-Small
Inkling-Small leads on the public coding lane, 43.8 to 41.1, with Supported evidence for both models, although the 90% intervals overlap.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Inkling
Inkling leads on the public agentic lane, 38.3 to 36.9, with Supported evidence for both models, although the 90% intervals overlap.
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
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. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
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
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.
1 Inkling only
20 Shared
5 Inkling-Small only
- Shared results
- 20
- Inkling only
- 1
- Inkling-Small only
- 5
- Like-for-like categories
- 5 / 8
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
Coding
Like-for-like- Inkling
- 41.1
- Supported · #111/151
- Inkling-Small
- 43.8
- Supported · #97/151
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 6 vs 6 public rows
- Reading
- Inkling-Small leads · intervals overlap
Knowledge
Like-for-like- Inkling
- 57.4
- Supported · #43/183
- Inkling-Small
- 56.5
- Supported · #46/183
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 6 vs 6 public rows
- Reading
- Inkling leads · intervals overlap
Multimodal
Like-for-like- Inkling
- 49.2
- #38/48
- Inkling-Small
- 48.8
- #39/48
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 2 weighted rows
- Reading
- Practical tie
Instruction following
Like-for-like- Inkling
- 85.2
- #44/123
- Inkling-Small
- 89.6
- #25/123
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Inkling-Small leads
Reasoning
Not comparable- Inkling
- 74.1
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Inkling-Small
- 42.7
- Unranked · 3 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Inkling
- 78.9
- Unranked · 1 rankable row
- Inkling-Small
- 76.9
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 2 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Inkling
- Not ranked
- Inkling-Small
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Inkling | Inkling-Small | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 38.3Supported · #122/152 | 36.9Supported · #128/152 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign lane · 4 vs 5 public rows | Inkling leads · intervals overlap |
| Coding | 41.1Supported · #111/151 | 43.8Supported · #97/151 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign lane · 6 vs 6 public rows | Inkling-Small leads · intervals overlap |
| Knowledge | 57.4Supported · #43/183 | 56.5Supported · #46/183 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign lane · 6 vs 6 public rows | Inkling leads · intervals overlap |
| Multimodal | 49.2#38/48 | 48.8#39/48 | Like-for-likeProvisional lane · 2 vs 2 weighted rows | Practical tie |
| Instruction following | 85.2#44/123 | 89.6#25/123 | Like-for-likeProvisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows | Inkling-Small leads |
| Reasoning | 74.1Unranked · 2 rankable rows | 42.7Unranked · 3 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 78.9Unranked · 1 rankable row | 76.9Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 2 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
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
HLE w/o tools
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
- Inkling has the higher public score estimate, 60.28 versus 59.25, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- 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 evidence26 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
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Inkling47.6%SourceInkling-Small55.1%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
FrontierSWE v2
Inkling4.1%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Inkling85.5%SourceInkling-Small85.9%SourceInkling-Small leads this result
SWE-bench (Vals)
Inkling77.6%SourceInkling-Small82.2%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
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Inkling87.1%SourceInkling-Small83.6%SourceInkling leads this result
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Inkling86.3%SourceInkling-Small85.6%SourceInkling leads this result
Math
Multimodal
Instruction following
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Inkling or Inkling-Small?
Inkling has the higher public score estimate, 60.28 versus 59.25, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
Which is better for coding, Inkling or Inkling-Small?
Inkling-Small leads the public coding lane, 43.8 to 41.1, with Supported evidence for both models, although the 90% intervals overlap.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Inkling or Inkling-Small?
Inkling leads the public agentic tasks lane, 38.3 to 36.9, with Supported evidence for both models, although the 90% intervals overlap.
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 September 10, 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.