Skip to main content
BenchLM
Data

Inkling vs Nemotron 3 Ultra

Updated October 14, 2026. Rank says Inkling is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Share or export
Share on XLinkedInAPI/MCP

Decision reading

Inkling has the higher public point estimate, 52.13 versus 47.2. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. 14 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Model A
Thinking Machines Lab logo

Thinking Machines Lab

52.13/100

Supported · Public rank #85

90% interval 41.7–62.5

Model B
NVIDIA logo

NVIDIA

47.2/100

Estimated · Public rank #105

Conditional range 32.9–61.5

Shared results
14
Inkling only
10
Nemotron 3 Ultra only
10
Like-for-like categories
3 / 8
Supported: Inkling · Estimated: Nemotron 3 Ultra. Conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.How the comparison works

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

    Inkling has the higher public coding point estimate, 34 to 22.4, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.

    Confidence: limited
  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Inkling

    Inkling has the higher public agentic point estimate, 36.2 to 27.2, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.

    Confidence: limited
Show secondary and unsupported calls
  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    No clear pick

    The documented context windows are equal.

    Confidence: documented
  • 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

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    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

Which one for a specific job

Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.

The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.

34.0Inkling22.4Nemotron 3 Ultra

Like-for-like · BenchAlign v5.8

Inkling has the higher coding point estimate. Conditional score ranges do not establish rank confidence.

Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.

Same basis rules as the category table below

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

2 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

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.

Bars run 0–100 on each benchmark’s normalized display scale

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 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.

Agentic

Like-for-like
Inkling
36.2
Supported · #72/124
Nemotron 3 Ultra
27.2
Supported · #95/124
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 5 vs 6 public rows
Reading
Inkling leads · intervals overlap

Coding

Like-for-like
Inkling
34.0
Supported · #80/149
Nemotron 3 Ultra
22.4
Supported · #115/149
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 6 vs 7 public rows
Reading
Inkling leads · intervals overlap

Instruction following

Like-for-like
Inkling
87.6
#35/128
Nemotron 3 Ultra
92.1
#20/128
Basis
Provisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Nemotron 3 Ultra leads

Reasoning

Directional only
Inkling
79.0
#14/29
Nemotron 3 Ultra
70.7
#20/29
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Directional only

Knowledge

Directional only
Inkling
54.5
Supported · #62/181
Nemotron 3 Ultra
50.7
Estimated · #77/181
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 6 vs 7 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Multimodal

Not comparable
Inkling
67.5
#35/54
Nemotron 3 Ultra
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Inkling
Not ranked
Nemotron 3 Ultra
89.2
#7/17
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Inkling
58.3
#11/12
Nemotron 3 Ultra
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 3 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology

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
Nemotron 3 Ultra
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

Nemotron 3 Ultra has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Inkling
$0.10754
Fits in one request
Nemotron 3 Ultra
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

Nemotron 3 Ultra 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
Nemotron 3 Ultra
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

Nemotron 3 Ultra has no comparable published API token rate.

Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

Inkling

1M

Nemotron 3 Ultra

1M

API model ID

Inkling

Not sourced

Nemotron 3 Ultra

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

Nemotron 3 Ultra

No comparable hosted API rate

Documented inputs

Inkling

Not sourced

Nemotron 3 Ultra

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Inkling

Not sourced

Nemotron 3 Ultra

Not sourced

Provider availability

Inkling

Not sourced

Nemotron 3 Ultra

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Inkling

Hybrid

Nemotron 3 Ultra

Reasoning

Weight access

Inkling

Open Weight

Nemotron 3 Ultra

Open Weight

License

Inkling

Open Weight

Nemotron 3 Ultra

Open Weight

Release date

Inkling

2026-07-15

Nemotron 3 Ultra

2026-06-04

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 point estimate, 52.13 versus 47.2. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
Both models list 1M.
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Questions

Which is better, Inkling or Nemotron 3 Ultra?

Inkling has the higher public point estimate, 52.13 versus 47.2. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, Inkling or Nemotron 3 Ultra?

Inkling has the higher public coding point estimate, 34 to 22.4, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Inkling or Nemotron 3 Ultra?

Inkling has the higher public agentic tasks point estimate, 36.2 to 27.2, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.

Which costs less, Inkling or Nemotron 3 Ultra?

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 Nemotron 3 Ultra?

Both models list the same context window, 1M.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence34 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Inkling63.8%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Ultra56.4%
    Source

    Inkling leads this result

  • BrowseComp

    Inkling77.1%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Ultra44.4%
    Source

    Inkling leads this result

  • MCP Atlas

    Inkling74.1%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Ultra—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)

    Inkling47.6%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Ultra50.9%
    Source

    Nemotron 3 Ultra leads this result

  • CWE-bench v1

    Inkling37.0%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Ultra—

    Not directly comparable

  • PinchBench

    Inkling—
    Nemotron 3 Ultra90.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • τ³-bench results

    Inkling—
    Nemotron 3 Ultra70.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/ tools

    Inkling—
    Nemotron 3 Ultra37.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Inkling77.6%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Ultra71.9%
    Source

    Inkling leads this result

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Inkling54.3%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Ultra—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Inkling63.8%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Ultra56.4%
    Source

    Inkling leads this result

  • FrontierSWE v2

    Inkling4.1%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Ultra—

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench (Vals)

    Inkling85.5%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Ultra86.0%
    Source

    Nemotron 3 Ultra leads this result

  • SWE-bench (Vals)

    Inkling77.6%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Ultra69.0%
    Source

    Inkling leads this result

  • SWE Multilingual

    Inkling—
    Nemotron 3 Ultra67.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench v6

    Inkling—
    Nemotron 3 Ultra89.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SciCode

    Inkling—
    Nemotron 3 Ultra44.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • CritPt

    Inkling—
    Nemotron 3 Ultra3.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • LongBench v2

    Inkling—
    Nemotron 3 Ultra61.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • MMMU-Pro

    Inkling73.5%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Ultra—

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv

    Inkling82%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Ultra—

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv w/o tools

    Inkling78.1%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Ultra—

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA

    Inkling87.9%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Ultra87%
    Source

    Inkling leads this result

  • GPQA-D

    Inkling87.9%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Ultra87.0%
    Source

    Inkling leads this result

  • HLE

    Inkling46%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Ultra26.7%
    Source

    Inkling leads this result

  • HLE w/o tools

    Inkling30%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Ultra26.7%
    Source

    Inkling leads this result

  • GPQA Diamond (Vals)

    Inkling87.1%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Ultra86.1%
    Source

    Inkling leads this result

  • MMLU-Pro (Vals)

    Inkling86.3%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Ultra85.8%
    Source

    Inkling leads this result

  • MMLU-Pro

    Inkling—
    Nemotron 3 Ultra86.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multilingual

  • MMLU-ProX

    Inkling—
    Nemotron 3 Ultra83%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • IFBench

    Inkling79.8%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Ultra81.7%
    Source

    Nemotron 3 Ultra leads this result

Math

  • AIME26

    Inkling97.1%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Ultra—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Inkling33.333%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Ultra—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Inkling4.878%
    Source
    Nemotron 3 Ultra—

    Not directly comparable

34 public results · 14 shared

Watch Inkling vs Nemotron 3 Ultra

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 5,500+ readers.

Last updated October 14, 2026