Skip to main content
BenchLM

Inkling vs Pareto 26.10 Preview

Updated October 1, 2026. We do not rank this pair: at least one has no public score. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Share or export
Share on XLinkedInSocial cardCSVJSON

Decision reading

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. 1 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

54.78/100

Supported · Public rank #69

90% interval 44.6–65.0

Model B

Unbiased

—

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

Shared results
1
Inkling only
21
Pareto 26.10 Preview only
2
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8
Supported: InklingHow 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.

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Inkling

    Inkling has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates
  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

    200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

    Inkling

    Inkling has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates
Show secondary and unsupported calls
  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    Inkling

    Inkling has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates
  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    Pareto 26.10 Preview is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

    Confidence: limited
  • Agentic work

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

    Not enough matched evidence

    Pareto 26.10 Preview is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.

    Confidence: limited
  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete context comparison is not sourced.

    Confidence: limited

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.

36.4Inkling—Pareto 26.10 Preview

Not comparable · BenchAlign v5.8

The coding row is not comparable on the public lane: at least one model is not measured or not ranked there.

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.

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.

A shared-evidence shape is not available.

BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.

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

Not comparable
Inkling
36.2
Supported · #66/119
Pareto 26.10 Preview
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 5 vs 1 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
Inkling
36.4
Supported · #74/144
Pareto 26.10 Preview
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 6 vs 1 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Inkling
75.5
#13/27
Pareto 26.10 Preview
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Inkling
49.7
#40/49
Pareto 26.10 Preview
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
Inkling
54.1
Supported · #52/170
Pareto 26.10 Preview
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 6 vs 1 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Inkling
Not ranked
Pareto 26.10 Preview
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Inkling
83.9
#44/124
Pareto 26.10 Preview
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Inkling
78.5
Unranked · 1 rankable row
Pareto 26.10 Preview
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 1 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
Pareto 26.10 Preview
$0.00625
Fit state unavailable

Inkling has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Inkling
$0.10754
Fits in one request
Pareto 26.10 Preview
$0.1475
Fit state unavailable

Inkling has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

Inkling
$0.159
Fits in one request
Pareto 26.10 Preview
$0.175
Fit state unavailable

Inkling has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

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.

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

Pareto 26.10 Preview

$0.25 per 1M cached input tokens

Unbiased direct API pricing

Provider availability

Inkling

Not sourced

Pareto 26.10 Preview

Preview · Unbiased Chat Completions API, Unbiased Messages API, OpenRouter

Unbiased API documentation

Reasoning profile

Inkling

Hybrid

Pareto 26.10 Preview

Reasoning

Weight access

Inkling

Open Weight

Pareto 26.10 Preview

Proprietary

License

Inkling

Open Weight

Pareto 26.10 Preview

Proprietary

Release date

Inkling

2026-07-15

Pareto 26.10 Preview

2026-10-01

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
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
Workload cost
Repository review: $0.10754 vs $0.1475. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.159 vs $0.175.
Context tradeoff
A complete documented context comparison is not available.
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Questions

Which is better, Inkling or Pareto 26.10 Preview?

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, Inkling or Pareto 26.10 Preview?

Pareto 26.10 Preview is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Inkling or Pareto 26.10 Preview?

Pareto 26.10 Preview is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.

Which costs less, Inkling or Pareto 26.10 Preview?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.00421 on Inkling and $0.00625 on Pareto 26.10 Preview; repository review costs $0.10754 and $0.1475; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.159 and $0.175. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Which has the larger context window, Inkling or Pareto 26.10 Preview?

A complete documented context-window comparison is not available.

Benchmark evidence

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

Browse raw public benchmark evidence24 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Inkling63.8%
    Source
    Pareto 26.10 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • BrowseComp

    Inkling77.1%
    Source
    Pareto 26.10 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    Inkling74.1%
    Source
    Pareto 26.10 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)

    Inkling47.6%
    Source
    Pareto 26.10 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • CWE-bench v1

    Inkling37.0%
    Source
    Pareto 26.10 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 4.0

    Inkling—
    Pareto 26.10 Preview50.80%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Inkling77.6%
    Source
    Pareto 26.10 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Inkling54.3%
    Source
    Pareto 26.10 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Inkling63.8%
    Source
    Pareto 26.10 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierSWE v2

    Inkling4.1%
    Source
    Pareto 26.10 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench (Vals)

    Inkling85.5%
    Source
    Pareto 26.10 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench (Vals)

    Inkling77.6%
    Source
    Pareto 26.10 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSWE

    Inkling—
    Pareto 26.10 Preview69.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • MMMU-Pro

    Inkling73.5%
    Source
    Pareto 26.10 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv

    Inkling82%
    Source
    Pareto 26.10 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv w/o tools

    Inkling78.1%
    Source
    Pareto 26.10 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA

    Inkling87.9%
    Source
    Pareto 26.10 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA-D

    Inkling87.9%
    Source
    Pareto 26.10 Preview92.4%
    Source

    Pareto 26.10 Preview leads this result

  • HLE

    Inkling46%
    Source
    Pareto 26.10 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/o tools

    Inkling30%
    Source
    Pareto 26.10 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA Diamond (Vals)

    Inkling87.1%
    Source
    Pareto 26.10 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro (Vals)

    Inkling86.3%
    Source
    Pareto 26.10 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • IFBench

    Inkling79.8%
    Source
    Pareto 26.10 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • AIME26

    Inkling97.1%
    Source
    Pareto 26.10 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

24 public results · 1 shared

Watch Inkling vs Pareto 26.10 Preview

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

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.

Last updated October 1, 2026