Model comparison
Inkling vs Sakana Fugu
Head-to-head evidence from 7 shared benchmark results across 4 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Inkling #17; Sakana Fugu unranked
Evidence parity. Inkling and Sakana Fugu share 7 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 9 results are unique to Inkling; 4 to Sakana Fugu.
Updated July 15, 2026- Shared results
- 7
- Inkling only
- 9
- Sakana Fugu only
- 4
- Comparable categories
- 4 / 8
Pick Sakana Fugu if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Inkling only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 7 shared benchmark results across 4 evidence categories; 4 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Sakana Fugu is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 76 to 69. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Sakana Fugu's sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 95.5 against 51.7. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 63.8% to 80.2%. Inkling does hit back in coding, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Sakana Fugu 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 | Sakana Fugu |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | Inkling51.7 | Margin→ 43.8 | Sakana Fugu95.5 |
| Agentic | Inkling69.4 | Margin→ 10.8 | Sakana Fugu80.2 |
| Coding | Inkling68.6 | Margin← 8.9 | Sakana Fugu59.7 |
| Multimodal | Inkling76.5 | Margin→ 8.6 | Sakana Fugu85.1 |
| Reasoning | InklingNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Sakana Fugu86.6 |
| Math | Inkling97.1 | MarginNo overlap | Sakana FuguNot measured |
| Inst. Following | Inkling79.8 | MarginNo overlap | Sakana FuguNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 63.8%B 80.2%Winner: Sakana FuguΔ 16.4Terminal-Bench 2.0: Inkling scored 63.8%; Sakana Fugu scored 80.2%. Sakana Fugu wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 87.9%B 95.5%Winner: Sakana FuguΔ 7.6GPQA: Inkling scored 87.9%; Sakana Fugu scored 95.5%. Sakana Fugu wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 54.3%B 59%Winner: Sakana FuguΔ 4.7SWE-bench Pro: Inkling scored 54.3%; Sakana Fugu scored 59%. Sakana Fugu wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
CharXiv
MultimodalA 82%B 85.1%Winner: Sakana FuguΔ 3.1CharXiv: Inkling scored 82%; Sakana Fugu scored 85.1%. Sakana Fugu wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Inkling | Sakana Fugu | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Inkling$1.87 input / $4.68 output | Sakana FuguNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | InklingNot available | Sakana FuguNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | InklingNot available | Sakana FuguNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Inkling1M | Sakana Fugu1M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticSakana Fugu wins4 benchmarks
CodingInkling wins6 benchmarks
Reasoning1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Inkling | Sakana Fugu | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MRCRv2Source | — | 86.6% | Not comparable |
KnowledgeSakana Fugu wins4 benchmarks
Math1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Inkling | Sakana Fugu | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME26Source | 97.1% | — | Not comparable |
MultimodalSakana Fugu wins3 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Inkling | Sakana Fugu | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFBenchSource | 79.8% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (5)
Which is better, Inkling or Sakana Fugu?
Sakana Fugu is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 76 to 69. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 63.8% and 80.2%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Inkling or Sakana Fugu?
Sakana Fugu has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 95.5 versus 51.7. Inside this category, HLE w/o tools is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, Inkling or Sakana Fugu?
Inkling has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 68.6 versus 59.7. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Inkling or Sakana Fugu?
Sakana Fugu has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 80.2 versus 69.4. 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 Sakana Fugu?
Sakana Fugu has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 85.1 versus 76.5. Inside this category, CharXiv 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.