Model comparison
Inkling vs Qwen3.5 397B
Head-to-head evidence from 10 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Inkling #17; Qwen3.5 397B #20
BenchAlign evidence: Inkling not scored; Qwen3.5 397B estimated. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Inkling and Qwen3.5 397B share 10 comparable benchmark results. 6 of 8 categories are comparable. 6 results are unique to Inkling; 46 to Qwen3.5 397B.
Updated July 15, 2026- Shared results
- 10
- Inkling only
- 6
- Qwen3.5 397B only
- 46
- Comparable categories
- 6 / 8
Pick Inkling if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.5 397B only becomes the better choice if instruction following is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 10 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 6 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 59. 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 56.5. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 46% to 28.7%. Qwen3.5 397B does hit back in instruction following, 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 $0.60 input / $3.60 output per 1M tokens for Qwen3.5 397B. Qwen3.5 397B 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 Qwen3.5 397B.
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 397B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Inkling69.4 | Margin← 12.9 | Qwen3.5 397B56.5 |
| Inst. Following | Inkling79.8 | Margin→ 12.8 | Qwen3.5 397B92.6 |
| Math | Inkling97.1 | Margin← 6.5 | Qwen3.5 397B90.6 |
| Knowledge | Inkling51.7 | Margin→ 5.2 | Qwen3.5 397B56.9 |
| Multimodal | Inkling76.5 | Margin→ 3.1 | Qwen3.5 397B79.6 |
| Coding | Inkling68.6 | Margin← 2.1 | Qwen3.5 397B66.5 |
| Reasoning | InklingNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B63.2 |
| Multilingual | InklingNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B84.7 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 46%B 28.7%Winner: InklingΔ 17.3HLE: Inkling scored 46%; Qwen3.5 397B scored 28.7%. Inkling wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
BrowseComp
AgenticA 77.1%B 62%Winner: InklingΔ 15.1BrowseComp: Inkling scored 77.1%; Qwen3.5 397B scored 62%. Inkling wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 63.8%B 52.5%Winner: InklingΔ 11.3Terminal-Bench 2.0: Inkling scored 63.8%; Qwen3.5 397B scored 52.5%. Inkling wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
MMMU-Pro
MultimodalA 73.5%B 79%Winner: Qwen3.5 397BΔ 5.5MMMU-Pro: Inkling scored 73.5%; Qwen3.5 397B scored 79%. Qwen3.5 397B wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
AIME26
MathA 97.1%B 93.3%Winner: InklingΔ 3.8AIME26: Inkling scored 97.1%; Qwen3.5 397B scored 93.3%. 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 397B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Inkling$1.87 input / $4.68 output | Qwen3.5 397B$0.6 input / $3.6 output | Qwen3.5 397B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | InklingNot available | Qwen3.5 397B96 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | InklingNot available | Qwen3.5 397B2.44 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Inkling1M | Qwen3.5 397B128K | Inkling lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticInkling wins19 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Inkling | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 63.8% | 52.5% | Inkling leads |
| BrowseCompSource | 77.1% | 62% | Inkling leads |
| MCP AtlasSource | 74.1% | 46.1% | Inkling leads |
| Design Arena Agentic Web DevSource | 1258 | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 56.8% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 51.8% | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | — | 68.4% | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | — | 43.7% | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | — | 37.6% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 36.3% | Not comparable |
| MCP-TasksSource | — | 74.2% | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | — | 74.0% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 95.6% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 46.76% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 14.2% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 19.9% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 15.3% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 23.1% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 962 | Not comparable |
CodingInkling wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Inkling | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 77.6% | 76.2% | Inkling leads |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 54.3% | 50.9% | Inkling leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 63.8% | — | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench v6Source | — | 83.6% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | — | 40.9% | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | — | 42.0% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 48.2% | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
KnowledgeQwen3.5 397B wins14 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Inkling | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 87.9% | 88.4% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| GPQA-DSource | 87.9% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 46% | 28.7% | Inkling leads |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 30% | — | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 70.4% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 87.8% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | — | 94.9% | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | — | 93% | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 33.7% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 89.3% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 27.3% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | -29.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 31.4% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 89.1% | Not comparable |
MathInkling wins5 benchmarks
Multilingual2 benchmarks
MultimodalQwen3.5 397B wins8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Inkling | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | 73.5% | 79% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| CharXivSource | 82% | 80.8% | Inkling leads |
| CharXiv w/o toolsSource | 78.1% | — | Not comparable |
| MathVisionSource | — | 88.6% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 84.7% | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | — | 65.6% | Not comparable |
| V*Source | — | 95.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 77.3% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (7)
Which is better, Inkling or Qwen3.5 397B?
Inkling is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 69 to 59. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 46% and 28.7%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Inkling or Qwen3.5 397B?
Qwen3.5 397B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 56.9 versus 51.7. Inside this category, HLE is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, Inkling or Qwen3.5 397B?
Inkling has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 68.6 versus 66.5. Inside this category, SWE-bench Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, Inkling or Qwen3.5 397B?
Inkling has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 97.1 versus 90.6. Inside this category, AIME26 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Inkling or Qwen3.5 397B?
Inkling has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 69.4 versus 56.5. Inside this category, MCP Atlas is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Inkling or Qwen3.5 397B?
Qwen3.5 397B has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 79.6 versus 76.5. Inside this category, MMMU-Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for instruction following, Inkling or Qwen3.5 397B?
Qwen3.5 397B has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 92.6 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.