Model comparison
Inkling vs Trinity-Large-Thinking
Head-to-head evidence from 1 shared benchmark result across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Inkling #17; Trinity-Large-Thinking unranked
BenchAlign evidence: Inkling not scored; Trinity-Large-Thinking supported. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Inkling and Trinity-Large-Thinking share 1 comparable benchmark result. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 15 results are unique to Inkling; 19 to Trinity-Large-Thinking.
Updated July 15, 2026- Shared results
- 1
- Inkling only
- 15
- Trinity-Large-Thinking only
- 19
- Comparable categories
- 0 / 8
Benchmark data for Inkling and Trinity-Large-Thinking is coming soon on BenchLM.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 1 shared benchmark result across 1 evidence category; 0 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
BenchLM has partial data for these models, but not enough overlapping benchmark coverage to produce a fair score-level comparison yet.
Inkling is priced at $1.87 input / $4.68 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.25 input / $0.90 output per 1M tokens for Trinity-Large-Thinking. Inkling has the larger context window at 1M, compared with 512K for Trinity-Large-Thinking.
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 | Trinity-Large-Thinking |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Inkling69.4 | MarginNo overlap | Trinity-Large-ThinkingNot measured |
| Coding | Inkling68.6 | MarginNo overlap | Trinity-Large-ThinkingNot measured |
| Knowledge | Inkling51.7 | MarginNo overlap | Trinity-Large-ThinkingNot measured |
| Math | Inkling97.1 | MarginNo overlap | Trinity-Large-ThinkingNot measured |
| Multimodal | Inkling76.5 | MarginNo overlap | Trinity-Large-ThinkingNot measured |
| Inst. Following | Inkling79.8 | MarginNo overlap | Trinity-Large-ThinkingNot measured |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Inkling | Trinity-Large-Thinking | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Inkling$1.87 input / $4.68 output | Trinity-Large-Thinking$0.25 input / $0.9 output | Trinity-Large-Thinking has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | InklingNot available | Trinity-Large-ThinkingNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | InklingNot available | Trinity-Large-ThinkingNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Inkling1M | Trinity-Large-Thinking512K | Inkling lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Inkling | Trinity-Large-Thinking | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 63.8% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 77.1% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 74.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Design Arena Agentic Web DevSource | 1258 | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 90.1% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 32.55% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 2.7% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 554 | Not comparable |
Coding6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Inkling | Trinity-Large-Thinking | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 77.6% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 54.3% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 63.8% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench Verified*Source | — | 63.2% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | — | 22.7% | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | — | 36.1% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Inkling | Trinity-Large-Thinking | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 87.9% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | 87.9% | 76.3% | Inkling leads |
| HLESource | 46% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 30% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source | — | 83.4% | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 24.5% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 75.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 14.7% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | -44.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 22.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 86.6% | Not comparable |
Math2 benchmarks
Multimodal4 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Can I compare Inkling and Trinity-Large-Thinking on BenchLM yet?
Not fully yet. BenchLM is tracking both models, but the sourced benchmark breakdown for this comparison is still coming soon.
Why does this comparison show “coming soon”?
BenchLM only shows category winners and benchmark-level calls when we have sourced results that can be compared fairly. For these models, the public benchmark coverage is not complete enough yet.
What data is available for Inkling and Trinity-Large-Thinking today?
Inkling: $1.87 input / $4.68 output per 1M tokens Trinity-Large-Thinking: $0.25 input / $0.90 output per 1M tokens Both model pages still include creator, context window, reasoning mode, and other metadata while benchmark coverage fills in.
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.