Math
Directional only- Inkling
- 97.1
- MiniCPM5-1B
- 33.1
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Inkling vs MiniCPM5-1B
Updated August 29, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
Inkling has the higher public score, 67.02 versus 11.4, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
3 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.
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Inkling
Inkling has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. MiniCPM5-1B does not fit this workload in one request. MiniCPM5-1B has no comparable published API token rate.
Confidence: listed-rates
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
12 Inkling only
3 Shared
11 MiniCPM5-1B only
- Shared results
- 3
- Inkling only
- 12
- MiniCPM5-1B only
- 11
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 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.
Instruction following
Directional only- Inkling
- 79.8
- MiniCPM5-1B
- 58.5
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Agentic
Not comparable- Inkling
- 69.4
- MiniCPM5-1B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Coding
Not comparable- Inkling
- 68.6
- MiniCPM5-1B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Inkling
- Not measured
- MiniCPM5-1B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Inkling
- 51.6
- MiniCPM5-1B
- 44.0
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Inkling
- Not measured
- MiniCPM5-1B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Inkling
- 76.5
- MiniCPM5-1B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Inkling | MiniCPM5-1B | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Math | 97.1 | 33.1 | Directional only1 vs 2 rows | Directional only |
| Instruction following | 79.8 | 58.5 | Directional only1 vs 2 rows | Directional only |
| Agentic | 69.4 | Not measured | Not comparable2 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | 68.6 | Not measured | Not comparable2 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | 51.6 | 44.0 | Not comparable2 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 76.5 | Not measured | Not comparable2 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.
AIME26
Math
IFBench
Instruction following
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
- MiniCPM5-1B
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
MiniCPM5-1B has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Inkling
- $0.10754
- Fits in one request
- MiniCPM5-1B
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
MiniCPM5-1B has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Inkling
- $0.159
- Fits in one request
- MiniCPM5-1B
- API rate not published
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
MiniCPM5-1B does not fit this workload in one request. MiniCPM5-1B has no comparable published API token rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationInklingMiniCPM5-1B
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Inkling
1M
MiniCPM5-1B
131K
API model ID
Inkling
Not sourced
MiniCPM5-1B
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
MiniCPM5-1B
No comparable hosted API rate
Documented inputs
Inkling
Not sourced
MiniCPM5-1B
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Inkling
Not sourced
MiniCPM5-1B
Not sourced
Provider availability
Inkling
Not sourced
MiniCPM5-1B
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Inkling
Hybrid
MiniCPM5-1B
Reasoning
Weight access
Inkling
Open Weight
MiniCPM5-1B
Open Weight
License
Inkling
Open Weight
MiniCPM5-1B
Open Weight
Release date
Inkling
2026-07-15
MiniCPM5-1B
2026-05-25
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
- Inkling has the higher public score, 67.02 versus 11.4, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Inkling 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 evidence26 rows
Agentic
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Inkling77.6%SourceMiniCPM5-1B—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Inkling54.3%SourceMiniCPM5-1B—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Inkling63.8%SourceMiniCPM5-1B—Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench Pro
Inkling—MiniCPM5-1B22.7%SourceNot directly comparable
LiveCodeBench v6
Inkling—MiniCPM5-1B33.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
BBH
Inkling—MiniCPM5-1B71.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
GPQA
Inkling87.9%SourceMiniCPM5-1B—Not directly comparable
GPQA-D
Inkling87.9%SourceMiniCPM5-1B26.3%SourceInkling leads this result
HLE
Inkling46%SourceMiniCPM5-1B—Not directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Inkling30%SourceMiniCPM5-1B—Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
Inkling—MiniCPM5-1B48.9%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLU-Redux
Inkling—MiniCPM5-1B70.1%SourceNot directly comparable
SuperGPQA
Inkling—MiniCPM5-1B23.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
Multimodal
Instruction following
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Inkling or MiniCPM5-1B?
Inkling has the higher public score, 67.02 versus 11.4, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap. That is the clearest overall quality signal in the current public data.
Which is better for coding, Inkling or MiniCPM5-1B?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Inkling or MiniCPM5-1B?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.
Which costs less, Inkling or MiniCPM5-1B?
Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.
Which has the larger context window, Inkling or MiniCPM5-1B?
Inkling has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 131K.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 29, 2026
Watch Inkling vs MiniCPM5-1B
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.