Agentic
Like-for-like- Inkling
- 69.4
- Qwen3.5 397B
- 56.5
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Inkling leads
Inkling vs Qwen3.5 397B
Updated August 29, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
Inkling has the higher public score estimate, 67.02 versus 57.78, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
10 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
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 leads on the same 2 weighted benchmark rows.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Inkling
Inkling leads on the same 2 weighted benchmark rows.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Inkling
Inkling has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Qwen3.5 397B
Qwen3.5 397B has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Qwen3.5 397B
Qwen3.5 397B 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
Not enough matched evidence
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Qwen3.5 397B does not fit this workload in one request. Qwen3.5 397B has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
5 Inkling only
10 Shared
28 Qwen3.5 397B only
- Shared results
- 10
- Inkling only
- 5
- Qwen3.5 397B only
- 28
- Like-for-like categories
- 3 / 8
2 categories use different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.
Coding
Like-for-like- Inkling
- 68.6
- Qwen3.5 397B
- 66.5
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Inkling leads
Multimodal
Like-for-like- Inkling
- 76.5
- Qwen3.5 397B
- 79.6
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Qwen3.5 397B leads
Knowledge
Directional only- Inkling
- 51.6
- Qwen3.5 397B
- 56.6
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 4 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Math
Directional only- Inkling
- 97.1
- Qwen3.5 397B
- 90.6
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Inkling
- Not measured
- Qwen3.5 397B
- 63.2
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Inkling
- Not measured
- Qwen3.5 397B
- 84.7
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Inkling
- 79.8
- Qwen3.5 397B
- 92.6
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Inkling | Qwen3.5 397B | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 69.4 | 56.5 | Like-for-like2 vs 2 rows | Inkling leads |
| Coding | 68.6 | 66.5 | Like-for-like2 vs 2 rows | Inkling leads |
| Multimodal | 76.5 | 79.6 | Like-for-like2 vs 2 rows | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| Knowledge | 51.6 | 56.6 | Directional only2 vs 4 rows | Directional only |
| Math | 97.1 | 90.6 | Directional only1 vs 2 rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | Not measured | 63.2 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | 84.7 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | 79.8 | 92.6 | Not comparable1 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
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.
HLE
Knowledge
BrowseComp
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Agentic
MMMU-Pro
Multimodal
AIME26
Math
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
- Qwen3.5 397B
- $0.0024
- Fits in one request
Qwen3.5 397B 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
- Qwen3.5 397B
- $0.0408
- Fits in one request
Qwen3.5 397B 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
- Qwen3.5 397B
- $0.168
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Qwen3.5 397B does not fit this workload in one request. Qwen3.5 397B has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationInklingQwen3.5 397B
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Inkling
1M
Qwen3.5 397B
128K
API model ID
Inkling
Not sourced
Qwen3.5 397B
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
Qwen3.5 397B
Not published
Documented inputs
Inkling
Not sourced
Qwen3.5 397B
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Inkling
Not sourced
Qwen3.5 397B
Not sourced
Provider availability
Inkling
Not sourced
Qwen3.5 397B
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Inkling
Hybrid
Qwen3.5 397B
Non-Reasoning
Weight access
Inkling
Open Weight
Qwen3.5 397B
Open Weight
License
Inkling
Open Weight
Qwen3.5 397B
Open Weight
Release date
Inkling
2026-07-15
Qwen3.5 397B
2026-02-16
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 score estimate, 67.02 versus 57.78, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.10754 vs $0.0408. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.159 vs $0.168.
- Context tradeoff
- Inkling has the larger documented window (1M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence43 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Inkling63.8%SourceQwen3.5 397B52.5%SourceInkling leads this result
BrowseComp
Inkling77.1%SourceQwen3.5 397B62%SourceInkling leads this result
MCP Atlas
Inkling74.1%SourceQwen3.5 397B46.1%SourceInkling leads this result
Claw-Eval
Inkling—Qwen3.5 397B56.8%SourceNot directly comparable
QwenClawBench
Inkling—Qwen3.5 397B51.8%SourceNot directly comparable
τ³-bench results
Inkling—Qwen3.5 397B68.4%SourceNot directly comparable
VITA-Bench
Inkling—Qwen3.5 397B43.7%SourceNot directly comparable
DeepPlanning
Inkling—Qwen3.5 397B37.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon
Inkling—Qwen3.5 397B36.3%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP-Tasks
Inkling—Qwen3.5 397B74.2%SourceNot directly comparable
WideResearch
Inkling—Qwen3.5 397B74.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Gert Labs
Inkling—Qwen3.5 397B46.76%SourceNot directly comparable
ResearchClawBench
Inkling—Qwen3.5 397B14.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Inkling77.6%SourceQwen3.5 397B76.2%SourceInkling leads this result
SWE-bench Pro
Inkling54.3%SourceQwen3.5 397B50.9%SourceInkling leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Inkling63.8%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench v6
Inkling—Qwen3.5 397B83.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Knowledge
GPQA
Inkling87.9%SourceQwen3.5 397B88.4%SourceQwen3.5 397B leads this result
GPQA-D
Inkling87.9%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
HLE
Inkling46%SourceQwen3.5 397B28.7%SourceInkling leads this result
HLE w/o tools
Inkling30%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
SuperGPQA
Inkling—Qwen3.5 397B70.4%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
Inkling—Qwen3.5 397B87.8%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLU-Redux
Inkling—Qwen3.5 397B94.9%SourceNot directly comparable
C-Eval
Inkling—Qwen3.5 397B93%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
AIME26
Inkling97.1%SourceQwen3.5 397B93.3%SourceInkling leads this result
HMMT Feb 2025
Inkling—Qwen3.5 397B94.8%SourceNot directly comparable
HMMT Nov 2025
Inkling—Qwen3.5 397B92.7%SourceNot directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2026
Inkling—Qwen3.5 397B87.9%SourceNot directly comparable
MMAnswerBench
Inkling—Qwen3.5 397B80.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Multilingual
Multimodal
MMMU-Pro
Inkling73.5%SourceQwen3.5 397B79%SourceQwen3.5 397B leads this result
CharXiv
Inkling82%SourceQwen3.5 397B80.8%SourceInkling leads this result
CharXiv w/o tools
Inkling78.1%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
MathVision
Inkling—Qwen3.5 397B88.6%SourceNot directly comparable
VideoMMMU
Inkling—Qwen3.5 397B84.7%SourceNot directly comparable
ScreenSpot Pro
Inkling—Qwen3.5 397B65.6%SourceNot directly comparable
V*
Inkling—Qwen3.5 397B95.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Instruction following
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Inkling or Qwen3.5 397B?
Inkling has the higher public score estimate, 67.02 versus 57.78, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
Which is better for coding, Inkling or Qwen3.5 397B?
Inkling leads the like-for-like coding comparison across 2 shared weighted benchmark rows.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Inkling or Qwen3.5 397B?
Inkling leads the like-for-like agentic tasks comparison across 2 shared weighted benchmark rows.
Which costs less, Inkling or Qwen3.5 397B?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.00421 on Inkling and $0.0024 on Qwen3.5 397B; repository review costs $0.10754 and $0.0408; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.159 and $0.168. Qwen3.5 397B does not fit this workload in one request. Qwen3.5 397B has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, Inkling or Qwen3.5 397B?
Inkling has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 128K.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 29, 2026
Watch Inkling vs Qwen3.5 397B
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.