Skip to main content

Model comparison

Inkling vs Interfaze Beta

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 3 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

Thinking Machines Lab
69/100
Margin
6.0pts
← winning
63/100
1 category wins1 category wins

Verified leaderboard positions: Inkling #17; Interfaze Beta unranked

Evidence parity. Inkling and Interfaze Beta share 3 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 13 results are unique to Inkling; 7 to Interfaze Beta.

Updated July 15, 2026
Shared results
3
Inkling only
13
Interfaze Beta only
7
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Pick Inkling if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Interfaze Beta only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 3 shared benchmark results across 2 evidence categories; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Inkling is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 69 to 63. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Inkling's sharpest advantage is in multimodal & grounded, where it averages 76.5 against 71.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is MMMU-Pro, 73.5% to 71.1%. Interfaze Beta does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

Inkling is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.87 input / $4.68 output per 1M tokens, versus $1.50 input / $3.50 output per 1M tokens for Interfaze Beta. Interfaze Beta is the reasoning model in the pair, while Inkling is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use.

Category breakdown

Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.

Category scores and score margins for Inkling and Interfaze Beta
CategoryInklingΔInterfaze Beta
KnowledgeInkling51.7Margin 38.2Interfaze Beta89.9
MultimodalInkling76.5Margin 5.4Interfaze Beta71.1
AgenticInkling69.4MarginNo overlapInterfaze BetaNot measured
CodingInkling68.6MarginNo overlapInterfaze BetaNot measured
MathInkling97.1MarginNo overlapInterfaze BetaNot measured
Inst. FollowingInkling79.8MarginNo overlapInterfaze BetaNot measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · InklingB · Interfaze Beta
  1. MMMU-Pro

    Multimodal
    Source ↗
    A 73.5%B 71.1%
    Winner: InklingΔ 2.4
    MMMU-Pro: Inkling scored 73.5%; Interfaze Beta scored 71.1%. Inkling wins this benchmark.
  2. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 87.9%B 89.9%
    Winner: Interfaze BetaΔ 2
    GPQA: Inkling scored 87.9%; Interfaze Beta scored 89.9%. Interfaze Beta wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricInklingInterfaze BetaComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensInkling$1.87 input / $4.68 outputInterfaze Beta$1.5 input / $3.5 outputInterfaze Beta has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondInklingNot availableInterfaze BetaNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenInklingNot availableInterfaze BetaNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensInkling1MInterfaze Beta1MListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkInklingInterfaze BetaResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 63.8%Not comparable
BrowseCompSource 77.1%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource 74.1%Not comparable
Design Arena Agentic Web DevSource 1258Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkInklingInterfaze BetaResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 77.6%Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 54.3%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 63.8%Not comparable
Spider 2.0-LiteSource 52.9%Not comparable
KnowledgeInterfaze Beta wins
BenchmarkInklingInterfaze BetaResult
GPQASource 87.9%89.9%Interfaze Beta leads
GPQA-DSource 87.9%89.9%Interfaze Beta leads
HLESource 46%Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource 30%Not comparable
MMMLUSource 90.9%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkInklingInterfaze BetaResult
AIME26Source 97.1%Not comparable
MultimodalInkling wins
BenchmarkInklingInterfaze BetaResult
MMMU-ProSource 73.5%71.1%Inkling leads
CharXivSource 82%Not comparable
CharXiv w/o toolsSource 78.1%Not comparable
OCRBench V2Source 70.7%Not comparable
olmOCRSource 85.7%Not comparable
RefCOCO (avg)Source 82.1%Not comparable
VoxPopuli WERSource 2.4%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkInklingInterfaze BetaResult
IFBenchSource 79.8%Not comparable
SOB Value AccSource 79.5%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, Inkling or Interfaze Beta?

Inkling is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 69 to 63. The biggest single separator in this matchup is MMMU-Pro, where the scores are 73.5% and 71.1%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Inkling or Interfaze Beta?

Interfaze Beta has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 89.9 versus 51.7. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Inkling or Interfaze Beta?

Inkling has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 76.5 versus 71.1. Inside this category, MMMU-Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 15, 2026

The AI models change fast. We track them for you.

A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.

Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.