Skip to main content
Radar

Five or fewer confirmed AI changes, with original sources, on mornings when something changed.A free source-linked morning brief.

Start free brief
BenchLM
Model A
Inkling

Thinking Machines Lab

66.9/100

Supported · Public rank #24

90% interval 60.0–73.8

Inkling vs Qwen3.8-27B

Updated August 14, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Model B
Qwen3.8-27B

Alibaba

—

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

Decision reading

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.

8 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

    No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.

    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.

Shared results
8
Inkling only
7
Qwen3.8-27B only
19
Like-for-like categories
2 / 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.

Knowledge

Like-for-like
Inkling
51.6
Qwen3.8-27B
38.7
Weighted basis
2 vs 2 rows
Reading
Inkling leads

Instruction following

Like-for-like
Inkling
79.8
Qwen3.8-27B
79.5
Weighted basis
1 vs 1 rows
Reading
Inkling leads

Coding

Directional only
Inkling
68.6
Qwen3.8-27B
61.7
Weighted basis
2 vs 1 rows
Reading
Directional only

Multimodal

Directional only
Inkling
76.5
Qwen3.8-27B
90.2
Weighted basis
2 vs 1 rows
Reading
Directional only

Agentic

Not comparable
Inkling
69.4
Qwen3.8-27B
84.3
Weighted basis
2 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Inkling
Not measured
Qwen3.8-27B
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Inkling
97.1
Qwen3.8-27B
Not measured
Weighted basis
1 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Inkling
Not measured
Qwen3.8-27B
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
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.

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
Qwen3.8-27B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

Qwen3.8-27B has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Inkling
$0.10754
Fits in one request
Qwen3.8-27B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

Qwen3.8-27B 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
Qwen3.8-27B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

Qwen3.8-27B 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.

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

Inkling

1M

Qwen3.8-27B

262K

Qwen3.8-27B model card

API model ID

Inkling

Not sourced

Qwen3.8-27B

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

Qwen3.8-27B

No comparable hosted API rate

Qwen3.8-27B model card

Documented inputs

Inkling

Not sourced

Qwen3.8-27B

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Inkling

Not sourced

Qwen3.8-27B

Not sourced

Provider availability

Inkling

Not sourced

Qwen3.8-27B

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Inkling

Hybrid

Qwen3.8-27B

Reasoning

Weight access

Inkling

Open Weight

Qwen3.8-27B

Open Weight

License

Inkling

Open Weight

Qwen3.8-27B

Open Weight

Release date

Inkling

2026-07-15

Qwen3.8-27B

2026-08-05

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
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
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.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence34 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Inkling63.8%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-27B—

    Not directly comparable

  • BrowseComp

    Inkling77.1%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-27B—

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    Inkling74.1%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-27B—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Inkling—
    Qwen3.8-27B73.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CoWorkBench

    Inkling—
    Qwen3.8-27B70.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • JobBench

    Inkling—
    Qwen3.8-27B33.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Agents' Last Exam

    Inkling—
    Qwen3.8-27B42.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld-Verified

    Inkling—
    Qwen3.8-27B84.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • WebArena-Verified

    Inkling—
    Qwen3.8-27B64.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • AndroidWorld

    Inkling—
    Qwen3.8-27B81.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Inkling77.6%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-27B—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Inkling54.3%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-27B61.7%
    Source

    Qwen3.8-27B leads this result

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Inkling63.8%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-27B—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Inkling—
    Qwen3.8-27B73.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • NL2Repo

    Inkling—
    Qwen3.8-27B42.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • deepSwe

    Inkling—
    Qwen3.8-27B42.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench v6

    Inkling—
    Qwen3.8-27B90.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA

    Inkling87.9%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-27B89.2%
    Source

    Qwen3.8-27B leads this result

  • GPQA-D

    Inkling87.9%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-27B89.2%
    Source

    Qwen3.8-27B leads this result

  • HLE

    Inkling46%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-27B30.8%
    Source

    Inkling leads this result

  • HLE w/o tools

    Inkling30%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-27B30.8%
    Source

    Qwen3.8-27B leads this result

Math

  • AIME26

    Inkling97.1%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-27B—

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • MMMU-Pro

    Inkling73.5%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-27B—

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv

    Inkling82%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-27B90.2%
    Source

    Qwen3.8-27B leads this result

  • CharXiv w/o tools

    Inkling78.1%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-27B83.7%
    Source

    Qwen3.8-27B leads this result

  • MathVision

    Inkling—
    Qwen3.8-27B90.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MathVision w/ Python

    Inkling—
    Qwen3.8-27B94.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BabyVision

    Inkling—
    Qwen3.8-27B65.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BabyVision w/ Python

    Inkling—
    Qwen3.8-27B85.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Vision2Web

    Inkling—
    Qwen3.8-27B62.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OmniDocBench 1.5

    Inkling—
    Qwen3.8-27B91.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • RealWorldQA

    Inkling—
    Qwen3.8-27B85.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ERQA

    Inkling—
    Qwen3.8-27B65.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • IFBench

    Inkling79.8%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-27B79.5%
    Source

    Inkling leads this result

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Inkling or Qwen3.8-27B?

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, Inkling or Qwen3.8-27B?

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 Qwen3.8-27B?

The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.

Which costs less, Inkling or Qwen3.8-27B?

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 Qwen3.8-27B?

Inkling has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 262K.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated August 14, 2026

Watch Inkling vs Qwen3.8-27B

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.