Model comparison
Inkling vs Qwen3.5-35B-A3B
Head-to-head evidence from 4 shared benchmark results across 3 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Inkling #17; Qwen3.5-35B-A3B #30
BenchAlign evidence: Inkling not scored; Qwen3.5-35B-A3B supported. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Inkling and Qwen3.5-35B-A3B share 4 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 12 results are unique to Inkling; 25 to Qwen3.5-35B-A3B.
Updated July 15, 2026- Shared results
- 4
- Inkling only
- 12
- Qwen3.5-35B-A3B only
- 25
- Comparable categories
- 4 / 8
Pick Inkling if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.5-35B-A3B 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 4 shared benchmark results across 3 evidence categories; 4 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 54. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Inkling's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 69.4 against 51. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 63.8% to 40.5%. Qwen3.5-35B-A3B does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
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 Qwen3.5-35B-A3B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Qwen3.5-35B-A3B 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 262K for Qwen3.5-35B-A3B.
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 | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | Inkling51.7 | Margin→ 30.0 | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B81.7 |
| Agentic | Inkling69.4 | Margin← 18.4 | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B51.0 |
| Inst. Following | Inkling79.8 | Margin→ 12.1 | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B91.9 |
| Coding | Inkling68.6 | Margin← 8.0 | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B60.6 |
| Reasoning | InklingNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B59.0 |
| Math | Inkling97.1 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5-35B-A3BNot measured |
| Multilingual | InklingNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B81.0 |
| Multimodal | Inkling76.5 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5-35B-A3BNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 63.8%B 40.5%Winner: InklingΔ 23.3Terminal-Bench 2.0: Inkling scored 63.8%; Qwen3.5-35B-A3B scored 40.5%. Inkling wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
BrowseComp
AgenticA 77.1%B 61%Winner: InklingΔ 16.1BrowseComp: Inkling scored 77.1%; Qwen3.5-35B-A3B scored 61%. Inkling wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 77.6%B 69.2%Winner: InklingΔ 8.4SWE-bench Verified: Inkling scored 77.6%; Qwen3.5-35B-A3B scored 69.2%. Inkling wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 87.9%B 84.2%Winner: InklingΔ 3.7GPQA: Inkling scored 87.9%; Qwen3.5-35B-A3B scored 84.2%. Inkling wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Inkling | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Inkling$1.87 input / $4.68 output | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B$0 input / $0 output | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | InklingNot available | Qwen3.5-35B-A3BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | InklingNot available | Qwen3.5-35B-A3BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Inkling1M | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B262K | Inkling lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticInkling wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Inkling | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 63.8% | 40.5% | Inkling leads |
| BrowseCompSource | 77.1% | 61% | Inkling leads |
| MCP AtlasSource | 74.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Design Arena Agentic Web DevSource | 1258 | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | — | 54.5% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 89.2% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 28.96% | Not comparable |
CodingInkling wins6 benchmarks
Reasoning3 benchmarks
KnowledgeQwen3.5-35B-A3B wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Inkling | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 87.9% | 84.2% | Inkling leads |
| GPQA-DSource | 87.9% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 46% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 30% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 85.3% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 63.4% | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 29.3% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 84.5% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 19.7% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | -46.4% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 20.5% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 84.0% | Not comparable |
Math1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Inkling | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME26Source | 97.1% | — | Not comparable |
Multilingual1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Inkling | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProXSource | — | 81% | Not comparable |
Multimodal8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Inkling | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | 73.5% | — | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | 82% | — | Not comparable |
| CharXiv w/o toolsSource | 78.1% | — | Not comparable |
| MMMUSource | — | 81.4% | Not comparable |
| MMVUSource | — | 72.3% | Not comparable |
| MathVisionSource | — | 83.9% | Not comparable |
| V*Source | — | 92.7% | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 72.7% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (5)
Which is better, Inkling or Qwen3.5-35B-A3B?
Inkling is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 69 to 54. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 63.8% and 40.5%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Inkling or Qwen3.5-35B-A3B?
Qwen3.5-35B-A3B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 81.7 versus 51.7. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, Inkling or Qwen3.5-35B-A3B?
Inkling has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 68.6 versus 60.6. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Inkling or Qwen3.5-35B-A3B?
Inkling has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 69.4 versus 51. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for instruction following, Inkling or Qwen3.5-35B-A3B?
Qwen3.5-35B-A3B has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 91.9 versus 79.8. 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.