Model comparison
Inkling vs Qwen3.6 Plus
Head-to-head evidence from 10 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Inkling #17; Qwen3.6 Plus #14
BenchAlign evidence: Inkling not scored; Qwen3.6 Plus supported. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Inkling and Qwen3.6 Plus share 10 comparable benchmark results. 6 of 8 categories are comparable. 6 results are unique to Inkling; 51 to Qwen3.6 Plus.
Updated July 15, 2026- Shared results
- 10
- Inkling only
- 6
- Qwen3.6 Plus only
- 51
- Comparable categories
- 6 / 8
Pick Inkling if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.6 Plus only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 10 shared benchmark results across 6 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 63. 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 mathematics, where it averages 97.1 against 60.5. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 46% to 28.8%. Qwen3.6 Plus does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Qwen3.6 Plus 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.
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 Plus |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Inkling97.1 | Margin← 36.6 | Qwen3.6 Plus60.5 |
| Agentic | Inkling69.4 | Margin← 7.8 | Qwen3.6 Plus61.6 |
| Knowledge | Inkling51.7 | Margin→ 5.8 | Qwen3.6 Plus57.5 |
| Multimodal | Inkling76.5 | Margin→ 3.3 | Qwen3.6 Plus79.8 |
| Inst. Following | Inkling79.8 | Margin→ 2.5 | Qwen3.6 Plus82.3 |
| Coding | Inkling68.6 | Margin→ 1.7 | Qwen3.6 Plus70.3 |
| Reasoning | InklingNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6 Plus62.0 |
| Multilingual | InklingNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6 Plus84.7 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 46%B 28.8%Winner: InklingΔ 17.2HLE: Inkling scored 46%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 28.8%. Inkling wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
MMMU-Pro
MultimodalA 73.5%B 78.8%Winner: Qwen3.6 PlusΔ 5.3MMMU-Pro: Inkling scored 73.5%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 78.8%. Qwen3.6 Plus wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
IFBench
Inst. FollowingA 79.8%B 75.8%Winner: InklingΔ 4IFBench: Inkling scored 79.8%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 75.8%. Inkling wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 87.9%B 90.4%Winner: Qwen3.6 PlusΔ 2.5GPQA: Inkling scored 87.9%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 90.4%. Qwen3.6 Plus wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 54.3%B 56.6%Winner: Qwen3.6 PlusΔ 2.3SWE-bench Pro: Inkling scored 54.3%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 56.6%. Qwen3.6 Plus wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Inkling | Qwen3.6 Plus | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Inkling$1.87 input / $4.68 output | Qwen3.6 PlusNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | InklingNot available | Qwen3.6 PlusNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | InklingNot available | Qwen3.6 PlusNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Inkling1M | Qwen3.6 Plus1M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticInkling wins18 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Inkling | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 63.8% | 61.6% | Inkling leads |
| BrowseCompSource | 77.1% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 74.1% | 48.2% | Inkling leads |
| Design Arena Agentic Web DevSource | 1258 | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 58.8% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 57.2% | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | — | 70.7% | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | — | 44.3% | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | — | 41.5% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 39.8% | Not comparable |
| MCP-TasksSource | — | 74.1% | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | — | 74.3% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 27.6% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 97.7% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 31.8% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1135 | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 50.60% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 18.0% | Not comparable |
CodingQwen3.6 Plus wins9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Inkling | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 77.6% | 78.8% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 54.3% | 56.6% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 63.8% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 73.8% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench v6Source | — | 87.1% | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | — | 25.56% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 54.5% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | — | 43.9% | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | — | 40.7% | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
KnowledgeQwen3.6 Plus wins14 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Inkling | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 87.9% | 90.4% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| GPQA-DSource | 87.9% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 46% | 28.8% | Inkling leads |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 30% | — | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 71.6% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 88.5% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | — | 94.5% | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | — | 93.3% | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 39.6% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 88.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 25.7% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | 2.7% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 26.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 32.0% | Not comparable |
MathInkling wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Inkling | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME26Source | 97.1% | 95.3% | Inkling leads |
| HMMT Feb 2025Source | — | 96.7% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Nov 2025Source | — | 94.6% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | — | 87.8% | Not comparable |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | — | 83.8% | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | — | 26.207% | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | — | 8.333% | Not comparable |
Multilingual2 benchmarks
MultimodalQwen3.6 Plus wins10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Inkling | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | 73.5% | 78.8% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| CharXivSource | 82% | 81.5% | Inkling leads |
| CharXiv w/o toolsSource | 78.1% | — | Not comparable |
| MMMUSource | — | 86.0% | Not comparable |
| MathVisionSource | — | 88.0% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 84.0% | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | — | 68.2% | Not comparable |
| V*Source | — | 96.9% | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 78.0% | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | — | 1254 | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (7)
Which is better, Inkling or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Inkling is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 69 to 63. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 46% and 28.8%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Inkling or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 57.5 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 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 70.3 versus 68.6. Inside this category, SWE-bench Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, Inkling or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Inkling has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 97.1 versus 60.5. Inside this category, AIME26 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Inkling or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Inkling has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 69.4 versus 61.6. 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 Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 79.8 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 Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 82.3 versus 79.8. Inside this category, IFBench is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
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.