Skip to main content

Model comparison

Inkling vs Qwen3 235B 2507

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 1 shared benchmark result across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

Thinking Machines Lab
69/100
Margin
13.3pts
← winning
55.74/100
0 category wins1 category wins

Verified leaderboard positions: Inkling #17; Qwen3 235B 2507 unranked

BenchAlign evidence: Inkling not scored; Qwen3 235B 2507 estimated. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Inkling and Qwen3 235B 2507 share 1 comparable benchmark result. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 15 results are unique to Inkling; 3 to Qwen3 235B 2507.

Updated July 15, 2026
Shared results
1
Inkling only
15
Qwen3 235B 2507 only
3
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick Inkling if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3 235B 2507 only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.

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 35. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

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 Qwen3 235B 2507. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Qwen3 235B 2507 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 128K for Qwen3 235B 2507.

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 scores and score margins for Inkling and Qwen3 235B 2507
CategoryInklingΔQwen3 235B 2507
KnowledgeInkling51.7Margin 27.3Qwen3 235B 250779.0
AgenticInkling69.4MarginNo overlapQwen3 235B 2507Not measured
CodingInkling68.6MarginNo overlapQwen3 235B 2507Not measured
MathInkling97.1MarginNo overlapQwen3 235B 2507Not measured
MultilingualInklingNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3 235B 250779.4
MultimodalInkling76.5MarginNo overlapQwen3 235B 2507Not measured
Inst. FollowingInkling79.8MarginNo overlapQwen3 235B 2507Not measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · InklingB · Qwen3 235B 2507
  1. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 87.9%B 77.5%
    Winner: InklingΔ 10.4
    GPQA: Inkling scored 87.9%; Qwen3 235B 2507 scored 77.5%. Inkling wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricInklingQwen3 235B 2507Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensInkling$1.87 input / $4.68 outputQwen3 235B 2507$0 input / $0 outputQwen3 235B 2507 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondInklingNot availableQwen3 235B 2507Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenInklingNot availableQwen3 235B 2507Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensInkling1MQwen3 235B 2507128KInkling lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkInklingQwen3 235B 2507Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 63.8%Not comparable
BrowseCompSource 77.1%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource 74.1%Not comparable
Design Arena Agentic Web DevSource 1258Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkInklingQwen3 235B 2507Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 77.6%Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 54.3%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 63.8%Not comparable
KnowledgeQwen3 235B 2507 wins
BenchmarkInklingQwen3 235B 2507Result
GPQASource 87.9%77.5%Inkling leads
GPQA-DSource 87.9%Not comparable
HLESource 46%Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource 30%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource 62.6%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource 83%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkInklingQwen3 235B 2507Result
AIME26Source 97.1%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkInklingQwen3 235B 2507Result
MMLU-ProXSource 79.4%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkInklingQwen3 235B 2507Result
MMMU-ProSource 73.5%Not comparable
CharXivSource 82%Not comparable
CharXiv w/o toolsSource 78.1%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkInklingQwen3 235B 2507Result
IFBenchSource 79.8%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Inkling or Qwen3 235B 2507?

Inkling is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 69 to 35. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 87.9% and 77.5%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Inkling or Qwen3 235B 2507?

Qwen3 235B 2507 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 79 versus 51.7. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 15, 2026

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.