Model comparison
Inkling vs Qwen3.6-27B
Head-to-head evidence from 9 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Inkling #17; Qwen3.6-27B #27
BenchAlign evidence: Inkling not scored; Qwen3.6-27B estimated. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Inkling and Qwen3.6-27B share 9 comparable benchmark results. 5 of 8 categories are comparable. 7 results are unique to Inkling; 46 to Qwen3.6-27B.
Updated July 15, 2026- Shared results
- 9
- Inkling only
- 7
- Qwen3.6-27B only
- 46
- Comparable categories
- 5 / 8
Pick Inkling if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.6-27B only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 9 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 5 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Inkling has the cleaner provisional overall profile here, landing at 69 versus 66. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
Inkling's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 69.4 against 59.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 46% to 24%. Qwen3.6-27B does hit back in coding, 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 Qwen3.6-27B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Qwen3.6-27B 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 Qwen3.6-27B.
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 | Qwen3.6-27B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Inkling69.4 | Margin← 10.1 | Qwen3.6-27B59.3 |
| Coding | Inkling68.6 | Margin→ 8.9 | Qwen3.6-27B77.5 |
| Math | Inkling97.1 | Margin← 7.9 | Qwen3.6-27B89.2 |
| Knowledge | Inkling51.7 | Margin→ 1.9 | Qwen3.6-27B53.6 |
| Multimodal | Inkling76.5 | Margin→ 0.2 | Qwen3.6-27B76.7 |
| Inst. Following | Inkling79.8 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-27BNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 46%B 24%Winner: InklingΔ 22HLE: Inkling scored 46%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 24%. Inkling wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 63.8%B 59.3%Winner: InklingΔ 4.5Terminal-Bench 2.0: Inkling scored 63.8%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 59.3%. Inkling wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
CharXiv
MultimodalA 82%B 78.4%Winner: InklingΔ 3.6CharXiv: Inkling scored 82%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 78.4%. Inkling wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
AIME26
MathA 97.1%B 94.1%Winner: InklingΔ 3AIME26: Inkling scored 97.1%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 94.1%. Inkling wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
MMMU-Pro
MultimodalA 73.5%B 75.8%Winner: Qwen3.6-27BΔ 2.3MMMU-Pro: Inkling scored 73.5%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 75.8%. Qwen3.6-27B wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Inkling | Qwen3.6-27B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Inkling$1.87 input / $4.68 output | Qwen3.6-27B$0 input / $0 output | Qwen3.6-27B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | InklingNot available | Qwen3.6-27BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | InklingNot available | Qwen3.6-27BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Inkling1M | Qwen3.6-27B262K | Inkling lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticInkling wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Inkling | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 63.8% | 59.3% | Inkling leads |
| BrowseCompSource | 77.1% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 74.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Design Arena Agentic Web DevSource | 1258 | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 72.4% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 53.4% | Not comparable |
| QwenWebBenchSource | — | 1487 | Not comparable |
| AndroidWorldSource | — | 70.3% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 27.0% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 94.2% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 32.0% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1140 | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 54.84% | Not comparable |
CodingQwen3.6-27B wins9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Inkling | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 77.6% | 77.2% | Inkling leads |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 54.3% | 53.5% | Inkling leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 63.8% | 59.3% | Inkling leads |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 71.3% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBenchSource | — | 83.9% | Not comparable |
| NL2RepoSource | — | 36.2% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 53.7% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | — | 34.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | — | 39.8% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
KnowledgeQwen3.6-27B wins14 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Inkling | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 87.9% | 87.8% | Inkling leads |
| GPQA-DSource | 87.9% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 46% | 24% | Inkling leads |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 30% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 86.2% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | — | 93.5% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 66% | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | — | 91.4% | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 37.0% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 84.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 21.6% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | -19.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 19.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 48.3% | Not comparable |
MathInkling wins5 benchmarks
MultimodalQwen3.6-27B wins17 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Inkling | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | 73.5% | 75.8% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| CharXivSource | 82% | 78.4% | Inkling leads |
| CharXiv w/o toolsSource | 78.1% | — | Not comparable |
| MMMUSource | — | 82.9% | Not comparable |
| RealWorldQASource | — | 84.1% | Not comparable |
| DynaMathSource | — | 85.6% | Not comparable |
| MStarSource | — | 81.4% | Not comparable |
| SimpleVQASource | — | 56.1% | Not comparable |
| CC-OCRSource | — | 81.2% | Not comparable |
| CountBenchSource | — | 97.8% | Not comparable |
| RefCOCO (avg)Source | — | 92.5% | Not comparable |
| ERQASource | — | 62.5% | Not comparable |
| Video-MME (with subtitle)Source | — | 87.7% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 84.4% | Not comparable |
| MLVU (M-Avg)Source | — | 86.6% | Not comparable |
| V*Source | — | 94.7% | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 74.6% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (6)
Which is better, Inkling or Qwen3.6-27B?
Inkling is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 69 to 66. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 46% and 24%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Inkling or Qwen3.6-27B?
Qwen3.6-27B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 53.6 versus 51.7. Inside this category, HLE is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, Inkling or Qwen3.6-27B?
Qwen3.6-27B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 77.5 versus 68.6. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, Inkling or Qwen3.6-27B?
Inkling has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 97.1 versus 89.2. Inside this category, AIME26 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Inkling or Qwen3.6-27B?
Inkling has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 69.4 versus 59.3. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Inkling or Qwen3.6-27B?
Qwen3.6-27B has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 76.7 versus 76.5. Inside this category, CharXiv is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
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.