Model comparison
Inkling vs Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
Head-to-head evidence from 1 shared benchmark result across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Inkling #17; Mistral Medium 3.5 128B unranked
Evidence parity. Inkling and Mistral Medium 3.5 128B share 1 comparable benchmark result. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 15 results are unique to Inkling; 24 to Mistral Medium 3.5 128B.
Updated July 15, 2026- Shared results
- 1
- Inkling only
- 15
- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B only
- 24
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Inkling if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Mistral Medium 3.5 128B only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 1 shared benchmark result across 1 evidence category; 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, 69 to 61. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.50 input / $7.50 output per 1M tokens, versus $1.87 input / $4.68 output per 1M tokens for Inkling. Mistral Medium 3.5 128B 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. Inkling gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for Mistral Medium 3.5 128B.
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 | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Inkling68.6 | Margin→ 9.0 | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B77.6 |
| Agentic | Inkling69.4 | MarginNo overlap | Mistral Medium 3.5 128BNot measured |
| Knowledge | Inkling51.7 | MarginNo overlap | Mistral Medium 3.5 128BNot measured |
| Math | Inkling97.1 | MarginNo overlap | Mistral Medium 3.5 128BNot measured |
| Multimodal | Inkling76.5 | MarginNo overlap | Mistral Medium 3.5 128BNot measured |
| Inst. Following | Inkling79.8 | MarginNo overlap | Mistral Medium 3.5 128BNot measured |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Inkling | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Inkling$1.87 input / $4.68 output | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B$1.5 input / $7.5 output | Inkling has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | InklingNot available | Mistral Medium 3.5 128BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | InklingNot available | Mistral Medium 3.5 128BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Inkling1M | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B256K | Inkling lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic14 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Inkling | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B | 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 |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | — | 91.4% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 19.0% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 94.2% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 21.4% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 929 | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 39.10% | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | — | 506 | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | — | 33.7% | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | — | 0.8% | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | — | 14.4% | Not comparable |
CodingMistral Medium 3.5 128B wins6 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Inkling | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B | 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 | — | 29.9% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 74.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 12.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | -36.3% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 25.1% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 82.0% | Not comparable |
| AA Openness IndexSource | — | 33.3% | Not comparable |
Math1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Inkling | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME26Source | 97.1% | — | Not comparable |
Multimodal4 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Inkling or Mistral Medium 3.5 128B?
Inkling is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 69 to 61.
Which is better for coding, Inkling or Mistral Medium 3.5 128B?
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 77.6 versus 68.6. Inkling stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
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.