Model comparison
Inkling vs Llama 4 Maverick
Head-to-head evidence from 14 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Inkling #17; Llama 4 Maverick unranked
BenchAlign evidence: Inkling not scored; Llama 4 Maverick supported. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Inkling and Llama 4 Maverick share 14 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 18 results are unique to Inkling; 5 to Llama 4 Maverick.
Updated July 16, 2026- Shared results
- 14
- Inkling only
- 18
- Llama 4 Maverick only
- 5
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Inkling if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Llama 4 Maverick only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 14 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 1 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, 72 to 18. 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 mathematics, where it averages 97.1 against 0.7.
Inkling is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.87 input / $4.68 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Llama 4 Maverick. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Llama 4 Maverick 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 | Inkling | Δ | Llama 4 Maverick |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Inkling97.1 | Margin← 96.4 | Llama 4 Maverick0.7 |
| Agentic | Inkling69.4 | MarginNo overlap | Llama 4 MaverickNot measured |
| Coding | Inkling68.6 | MarginNo overlap | Llama 4 MaverickNot measured |
| Knowledge | Inkling51.7 | MarginNo overlap | Llama 4 MaverickNot measured |
| Multimodal | Inkling76.5 | MarginNo overlap | Llama 4 MaverickNot measured |
| Inst. Following | Inkling79.8 | MarginNo overlap | Llama 4 MaverickNot measured |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Inkling | Llama 4 Maverick | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Inkling$1.87 input / $4.68 output | Llama 4 Maverick$0 input / $0 output | Llama 4 Maverick has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | InklingNot available | Llama 4 Maverick121 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | InklingNot available | Llama 4 Maverick0.95 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Inkling1M | Llama 4 Maverick1M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Inkling | Llama 4 Maverick | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 63.8% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 77.1% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 74.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Design Arena Agentic Web DevSource | 1258 | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 32.3% | 1.3% | Inkling leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 36.9% | 0.0% | Inkling leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 1239 | -16 | Inkling leads |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 836 | — | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 23.7% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 17.8% | Not comparable |
Coding6 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Inkling | Llama 4 Maverick | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 87.9% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | 87.9% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 46% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 30% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 40.7% | 14.3% | Inkling leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 87.2% | 67.1% | Inkling leads |
| AA-HLESource | 29.7% | 4.8% | Inkling leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 2.1% | -41.8% | Inkling leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 40.0% | 24.3% | Inkling leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 63.1% | 87.3% | Inkling leads |
MathInkling wins2 benchmarks
Multimodal5 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Inkling or Llama 4 Maverick?
Inkling is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 72 to 18.
Which is better for math, Inkling or Llama 4 Maverick?
Inkling has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 97.1 versus 0.7. Llama 4 Maverick stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
Related Comparisons
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.