Multimodal
Like-for-like- Inkling
- 76.5
- Qwen3.6-27B
- 76.7
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Qwen3.6-27B leads
Inkling vs Qwen3.6-27B
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 53.84, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
9 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.
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Inkling
Inkling has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
6 Inkling only
9 Shared
29 Qwen3.6-27B only
- Shared results
- 9
- Inkling only
- 6
- Qwen3.6-27B only
- 29
- Like-for-like categories
- 1 / 8
4 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.
Agentic
Directional only- Inkling
- 69.4
- Qwen3.6-27B
- 59.3
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Coding
Directional only- Inkling
- 68.6
- Qwen3.6-27B
- 77.5
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 3 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Knowledge
Directional only- Inkling
- 51.6
- Qwen3.6-27B
- 53.3
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 4 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Math
Directional only- Inkling
- 97.1
- Qwen3.6-27B
- 89.2
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Inkling
- Not measured
- Qwen3.6-27B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Inkling
- Not measured
- Qwen3.6-27B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Inkling
- 79.8
- Qwen3.6-27B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Inkling | Qwen3.6-27B | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Multimodal | 76.5 | 76.7 | Like-for-like2 vs 2 rows | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| Agentic | 69.4 | 59.3 | Directional only2 vs 1 rows | Directional only |
| Coding | 68.6 | 77.5 | Directional only2 vs 3 rows | Directional only |
| Knowledge | 51.6 | 53.3 | Directional only2 vs 4 rows | Directional only |
| Math | 97.1 | 89.2 | Directional only1 vs 2 rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | 79.8 | Not measured | Not comparable1 vs 0 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
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Agentic
CharXiv
Multimodal
AIME26
Math
MMMU-Pro
Multimodal
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
- Qwen3.6-27B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Qwen3.6-27B has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Inkling
- $0.10754
- Fits in one request
- Qwen3.6-27B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Qwen3.6-27B has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Inkling
- $0.159
- Fits in one request
- Qwen3.6-27B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
Qwen3.6-27B has no comparable published API token rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationInklingQwen3.6-27B
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Inkling
1M
Qwen3.6-27B
262K
API model ID
Inkling
Not sourced
Qwen3.6-27B
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
Qwen3.6-27B
No comparable hosted API rate
Documented inputs
Inkling
Not sourced
Qwen3.6-27B
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Inkling
Not sourced
Qwen3.6-27B
Not sourced
Provider availability
Inkling
Not sourced
Qwen3.6-27B
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Inkling
Hybrid
Qwen3.6-27B
Reasoning
Weight access
Inkling
Open Weight
Qwen3.6-27B
Open Weight
License
Inkling
Open Weight
Qwen3.6-27B
Open Weight
Release date
Inkling
2026-07-15
Qwen3.6-27B
2026-04-21
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 53.84, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Inkling has the larger documented window (1M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
Inkling
API / mo$4,913
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even—
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
Qwen3.6-27B
API / mo$0
Self-host / mo$429
Break-even—
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence44 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Inkling63.8%SourceQwen3.6-27B59.3%SourceInkling leads this result
BrowseComp
Inkling77.1%SourceQwen3.6-27B—Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Inkling74.1%SourceQwen3.6-27B—Not directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Inkling—Qwen3.6-27B72.4%SourceNot directly comparable
QwenClawBench
Inkling—Qwen3.6-27B53.4%SourceNot directly comparable
QwenWebBench
Inkling—Qwen3.6-27B1487SourceNot directly comparable
AndroidWorld
Inkling—Qwen3.6-27B70.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Gert Labs
Inkling—Qwen3.6-27B54.84%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Inkling77.6%SourceQwen3.6-27B77.2%SourceInkling leads this result
SWE-bench Pro
Inkling54.3%SourceQwen3.6-27B53.5%SourceInkling leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Inkling63.8%SourceQwen3.6-27B59.3%SourceInkling leads this result
SWE Multilingual
Inkling—Qwen3.6-27B71.3%SourceNot directly comparable
LiveCodeBench
Inkling—Qwen3.6-27B83.9%SourceNot directly comparable
NL2Repo
Inkling—Qwen3.6-27B36.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
GPQA
Inkling87.9%SourceQwen3.6-27B87.8%SourceInkling leads this result
GPQA-D
Inkling87.9%SourceQwen3.6-27B—Not directly comparable
HLE
Inkling46%SourceQwen3.6-27B24%SourceInkling leads this result
HLE w/o tools
Inkling30%SourceQwen3.6-27B—Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
Inkling—Qwen3.6-27B86.2%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLU-Redux
Inkling—Qwen3.6-27B93.5%SourceNot directly comparable
SuperGPQA
Inkling—Qwen3.6-27B66%SourceNot directly comparable
C-Eval
Inkling—Qwen3.6-27B91.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
AIME26
Inkling97.1%SourceQwen3.6-27B94.1%SourceInkling leads this result
HMMT Feb 2025
Inkling—Qwen3.6-27B93.8%SourceNot directly comparable
HMMT Nov 2025
Inkling—Qwen3.6-27B90.7%SourceNot directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2026
Inkling—Qwen3.6-27B84.3%SourceNot directly comparable
MMAnswerBench
Inkling—Qwen3.6-27B80.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Multimodal
MMMU-Pro
Inkling73.5%SourceQwen3.6-27B75.8%SourceQwen3.6-27B leads this result
CharXiv
Inkling82%SourceQwen3.6-27B78.4%SourceInkling leads this result
CharXiv w/o tools
Inkling78.1%SourceQwen3.6-27B—Not directly comparable
MMMU
Inkling—Qwen3.6-27B82.9%SourceNot directly comparable
RealWorldQA
Inkling—Qwen3.6-27B84.1%SourceNot directly comparable
DynaMath
Inkling—Qwen3.6-27B85.6%SourceNot directly comparable
MStar
Inkling—Qwen3.6-27B81.4%SourceNot directly comparable
SimpleVQA
Inkling—Qwen3.6-27B56.1%SourceNot directly comparable
CC-OCR
Inkling—Qwen3.6-27B81.2%SourceNot directly comparable
CountBench
Inkling—Qwen3.6-27B97.8%SourceNot directly comparable
RefCOCO (avg)
Inkling—Qwen3.6-27B92.5%SourceNot directly comparable
ERQA
Inkling—Qwen3.6-27B62.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)
Inkling—Qwen3.6-27B87.7%SourceNot directly comparable
VideoMMMU
Inkling—Qwen3.6-27B84.4%SourceNot directly comparable
MLVU (M-Avg)
Inkling—Qwen3.6-27B86.6%SourceNot directly comparable
V*
Inkling—Qwen3.6-27B94.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Instruction following
IFBench
Inkling79.8%SourceQwen3.6-27B—Not directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Inkling or Qwen3.6-27B?
Inkling has the higher public score estimate, 67.02 versus 53.84, 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 Qwen3.6-27B?
The current coding averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Inkling or Qwen3.6-27B?
The current agentic tasks averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which costs less, Inkling or Qwen3.6-27B?
Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.
Which has the larger context window, Inkling or Qwen3.6-27B?
Inkling has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 262K.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 29, 2026
Watch Inkling vs Qwen3.6-27B
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.