Skip to main content
BenchLM
Data

Data as of November 7, 2026 · How the score is built

Inkling 2 Small

Decision readingInkling 2 Small scores 59.1 out of 100 and ranks #56 of 212. This profile shows 33 source-displayable benchmark rows; its strongest eligible category is Multimodal & Grounded at #12. API pricing is $0.3 input and $1 output per million tokens, with cached input at $0.03.

Released Nov 5, 2026 — see all recent releases

Decision snapshot

Each value carries a field reference instead of floating alone. Markers compare this model with the current ranked and priced catalog; they are not absolute quality thresholds.

Capability

59.1/100

field median 50.1#56 of 212 ranked models

Public

#56of 212

Verified —

Price

$0.30input / $1 output

input median $0.60cached $0.030 · blended $0.65

Speed

Not measured

field median 92 tok/sTime to first token not measured

Context

1Mtokens

field median 256,000Maximum output length is tracked separately

Strongest published evidence

Multimodal & Grounded ranks #12. Particularly strong for screenshots, documents, charts, and grounded multimodal workflows.

Validate before choosing

33 published rows leave some tracked benchmark slots empty. Independent runtime speed has not been measured.

Source-linked · 33 displayable benchmark rows

Category score record

Scores and ranks appear only where published evidence can be displayed. The table keeps the score, weight, cohort, and evidence state together.

Category scores, ranks, weighting, benchmark coverage, and evidence status
CategoryScore
AgenticRank #26 of 131Percentile 81stWeight 22%5 benchmarksVerified
59.9
CodingRank #20 of 157Percentile 88thWeight 20%6 benchmarksVerified
59.7
ReasoningRank Not rankedWeight 17%1 benchmarkVerified
86.1
MultimodalRank #12 of 59Percentile 81stWeight 12%9 benchmarksVerified
86.6
KnowledgeRank #46 of 178Percentile 75thWeight 12%2 benchmarksVerified
60.4
MultilingualWeight 7%0 benchmarksNot measured
Not measured
Inst. FollowingWeight 5%0 benchmarksNot measured
Not measured
MathRank Not rankedWeight 5%2 benchmarksVerified
85.9

33 of 817 tracked benchmark slots have displayable evidence · bars run 0–100

Coverage details

How much of this is verified

Coverage is split by category so a strong number never hides a thin evidence base. Verified means the row is tied to a published source; provisional rows remain visible but separate.

  1. Agentic5/5 verified
  2. Coding6/6 verified
  3. Reasoning1/1 verified
  4. Multimodal9/9 verified
  5. Knowledge2/2 verified
  6. MultilingualNot measured
  7. Inst. FollowingNot measured
  8. Math2/2 verified
Verified sourceProvisionalNot measured

Capability shape

Each axis shows percentile within that category’s eligible cohort. The comparison outline is the median of the six nearest public-score peers; a collapsed vertex means the category is not rank-eligible.

Inkling 2 Small category percentile values

  • Agentic81st percentile
  • Coding88th percentile
  • ReasoningNot eligible
  • Multimodal81st percentile
  • Knowledge75th percentile
  • MultilingualNot eligible
  • Instruction followingNot eligible
  • MathNot eligible

The dashed outline is median of 6 nearest peers.

Eligible category ranks

  1. Agentic#26/131
  2. Coding#20/157
  3. ReasoningNot ranked
  4. Multimodal#12/59
  5. Knowledge#46/178
  6. MultilingualNot ranked
  7. Inst. FollowingNot ranked
  8. MathNot ranked
Top decileTop quartileMid-fieldNot eligible

Benchmark ledger

Coding opens by default. The marker compares each value with the best source-verified result in the catalog; provisional leaders do not set the reference. Expand the remaining categories for every published row.

Coding6 rows
Coding benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
DeepSWEScore72.1%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Muse Wonder Full · 79.0%

Gap6.9 behindWeight15% ref. weight
SWE MultilingualScore81.2%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 93.9%

Gap12.7 behindWeight5% ref. weight
SWE-bench VerifiedSoftware Engineering Benchmark VerifiedScore82.2%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 96%

Gap13.8 behindWeightDisplay only
sweMarathonScore38.8%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Step 5 Preview · 72.7%

Gap33.9 behindWeightDisplay only
Terminal-Bench 2.1Score85.1%Versus best verified row

Best verified: SWE-2 · 92.8%

Gap7.7 behindWeightDisplay only
PostTrainBench v1.2Score31.9%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Kimi K3.1 Pro · 36.5%

Gap4.6 behindWeightDisplay only
Agentic5 rows
Agentic benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
BrowseCompScore90.2%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Atria Dawn Preview · 92.5%

Gap2.3 behindWeight8% ref. weight
JobBenchScore70.5%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Muse Wonder Full · 75.3%

Gap4.8 behindWeight6% ref. weight
MCP AtlasScore85%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Muse Spark Open · 89.2%

Gap4.2 behindWeight4% ref. weight
DeepSearchQAScore90.9%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Atria Dawn Preview · 96.0%

Gap5.1 behindWeight2% ref. weight
Terminal-Bench 2.1Score85.1%Versus best verified row

Best verified: SWE-2 · 92.8%

Gap7.7 behindWeightDisplay only
Reasoning1 row
Reasoning benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
LongBench v2Score70.6%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Inkling 2 Small · 70.6%

GapBest verifiedWeightWeighted 25%
Multimodal9 rows
Multimodal benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
CharXivCharXiv ReasoningScore87.7%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 93.5%

Gap5.8 behindWeightWeighted 20%
CharXiv w/o toolsCharXiv Reasoning without toolsScore85.6%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Kimi K3.1 Pro · 89%

Gap3.4 behindWeightDisplay only
Chartography (no tools)Chartography without toolsScore36.7%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Gemini 4 Carbon · 72.5%

Gap35.8 behindWeightDisplay only
Chartography (tools)Chartography with image and code toolsScore80.4%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Sonnet 5.5 · 90.2%

Gap9.8 behindWeightDisplay only
BabyVisionScore68.6%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 82.0%

Gap13.4 behindWeightDisplay only
BabyVision w/ PythonBabyVision with PythonScore93.7%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Kimi K3.1 Pro · 95.4%

Gap1.7 behindWeightDisplay only
ScreenSpot ProScore83.8%Versus best verified row

Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 92.7%

Gap8.9 behindWeightDisplay only
PerceptionBenchPerceptionBench (Internal)Score64.7%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Kimi K3.1 Pro · 68.3%

Gap3.6 behindWeightDisplay only
MathVisionScore92.8%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 95.2%

Gap2.4 behindWeightDisplay only
Knowledge2 rows
Knowledge benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
GPQAGraduate-Level Google-Proof Q&AScore93%Versus best verified row

Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 96%

Gap3 behindWeight3% ref. weight
GPQA-DGPQA DiamondScore93.0%Versus best verified row

Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 96.0%

Gap3 behindWeightDisplay only
Math2 rows
Math benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
HMMT Feb 2026Harvard-MIT Mathematics Tournament February 2026Score95.8%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen3.7 Max · 97.1%

Gap1.3 behindWeightWeighted 25%
ApexScore63.5%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Hy4 preview · 74.2%

Gap10.7 behindWeightDisplay only
External signals8 rows
External signals benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
PMPP-HardPMPP-Hard GPU kernel optimization (AUC, 0-10 hours)Score494.27 task-hoursVersus best verified row

Best verified: Inkling 2 Small · 494.27 task-hours

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
ScreenSpot Pro w/ PythonScreenSpot Pro with PythonScore91.5%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Inkling 2 Small · 91.5%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
ComplexConstraintsComplexConstraints (Surge)Score44.5%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Inkling 2 Small · 44.5%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
EnterpriseBench-CoreCraftEnterpriseBench: CoreCraft (Surge)Score71.8%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Inkling 2 Small · 71.8%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
Diligence BenchDiligenceBench (Thoughtful), best harnessScore58.1%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Inkling 2 Small · 58.1%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
DAYJOB (Finance)DAYJOB, finance trackScore14.3%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Inkling 2 Small · 14.3%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
StrongREJECTStrongREJECT (no jailbreak)Score97.8%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Inkling 2 Small · 97.8%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
PatchEvalScore79.6%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Inkling 2 Small · 79.6%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only

What it costs to get this score

Published API price against the public score. The x-axis uses a log scale; the dashed path marks models that are not beaten by a cheaper, higher-scoring option. Price uses average of published input and output rates.

Current modelExplore all models

Inkling 2 Small · 59.1 score · $0.65 blended per million tokens

The chart opens on the current model. Scroll horizontally to inspect the full price axis.

405060708090100$0.10$0.50$1$5$10$25$50$100↘ frontierInkling 2 Small

Horizontal: blended price per million tokens, log scale · Vertical: public score

Lineage

The sequence follows explicit supersedes links. Each score is estimated for that model; a relative can inform a sparse estimate but never sets a floor, so a newer release can score below an earlier one. Scores and prices remain blank when the corresponding public row or first-party rate is unavailable.

  1. Nov 5, 2026 · you are here

    Inkling 2 Small

    Score 59.1 · $0.3 / $1

Spec sheet

Each documented value carries its source. Missing fields stay visible as not sourced or not published, rather than disappearing from the page.

API model ID
Not publishedTinker models and pricing
Maximum output
Not sourced yet
Knowledge cutoff
Not sourced yet
Input modalities
Not sourced yet
Output modalities
Not sourced yet
Parameters
Not disclosed by the provider
Availability
Available on Tinker for fine-tuning (64K and 256K tiers), the Tinker Playground and beta serverless sampling at 256K context, with closed weights for now. Thinking Machines plans to release full weights under Apache 2.0 the week after launch, once external safety testing and red-teaming finish. The model accepts text and image input (no audio) and supports up to 1M tokens.
Cloud regions
Not tracked yet
Lifecycle
Current
API capabilities
Tool calling, structured outputs, and batch support are not tracked yet
Prompt caching
Published at $0.030 per million cached input tokensTinker models and pricing
Self-host
Weights are not published
Rate limits
Not tracked yet

How to read this profile

The visual layer above carries the decisions. These notes preserve the model, ranking, coverage, and family context behind the numbers.

Inkling 2 Small ranks #56 of 212 on the public leaderboard with a score of 59.06/100. It does not yet have enough sourced coverage for a verified position.

Inkling 2 Small is a proprietary model with a 1M context window. No explicit reasoning mode is documented in this profile.

Available on Tinker for fine-tuning (64K and 256K tiers), the Tinker Playground and beta serverless sampling at 256K context, with closed weights for now. Thinking Machines plans to release full weights under Apache 2.0 the week after launch, once external safety testing and red-teaming finish. The model accepts text and image input (no audio) and supports up to 1M tokens.

Inkling 2 Small sits in the Inkling family with Inkling, Inkling-Small. 33 of 817 tracked benchmark slots currently have displayable evidence. Missing categories stay blank.

Its strongest eligible category is Multimodal & Grounded at #12, while its lowest eligible position is Knowledge at #46. particularly strong for screenshots, documents, charts, and grounded multimodal workflows.

Last updated November 7, 2026. Runtime fields remain blank until a sourced snapshot exists.

Questions

How does Inkling 2 Small perform overall in AI benchmarks?

Inkling 2 Small ranks #56 out of 212 models on the public BenchAlign leaderboard, with a score of 59.06/100. Its evidence status is Estimated, and this profile shows 33 source-displayable benchmark rows. The label describes evidence depth, not a provider quality claim; inspect category rows before choosing a workload.

Is Inkling 2 Small good for knowledge and understanding?

Inkling 2 Small ranks #46 out of 178 eligible models for knowledge and understanding, with a public category score of 60.4/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.

Is Inkling 2 Small good for coding and programming?

Inkling 2 Small ranks #20 out of 157 eligible models for coding and programming, with a public category score of 59.7/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.

Is Inkling 2 Small good for mathematics?

Inkling 2 Small has source-displayable benchmark coverage for mathematics, but the public category table does not assign it a rank there. The individual rows remain available for inspection. A missing category position means the evidence threshold was not met; it does not convert the model's unmeasured work into a zero.

Is Inkling 2 Small good for reasoning and logic?

Inkling 2 Small has source-displayable benchmark coverage for reasoning and logic, but the public category table does not assign it a rank there. The individual rows remain available for inspection. A missing category position means the evidence threshold was not met; it does not convert the model's unmeasured work into a zero.

Is Inkling 2 Small good for agentic tool use and computer tasks?

Inkling 2 Small ranks #26 out of 131 eligible models for agentic tool use and computer tasks, with a public category score of 59.9/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.

Is Inkling 2 Small good for multimodal and grounded tasks?

Inkling 2 Small ranks #12 out of 59 eligible models for multimodal and grounded tasks, with a public category score of 86.6/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.

Which sibling models are related to Inkling 2 Small?

Inkling 2 Small belongs to the Inkling family. Related tracked variants include Inkling, Inkling-Small. A sibling link indicates shared lineage or a documented configuration relationship; it does not mean the variants have identical pricing, context limits, benchmark evidence, or deployment behavior. Compare before switching.

Does Inkling 2 Small have full benchmark coverage on BenchLM?

No. Inkling 2 Small currently has 53 source-displayable rows. The profile exposes published, non-generated evidence and leaves missing categories blank until an exact evaluation is available. Coverage describes how much was measured; it is not a penalty added to an individual benchmark result.

What is the context window size of Inkling 2 Small?

Inkling 2 Small has a documented context window of 1M. That figure is the maximum combined prompt and retained-conversation space reported for this exact model; it is not the maximum output length. The profile keeps output limits separate because providers often publish those limits independently.

Watch Inkling 2 Small in the weekly brief

Get one weekly email when material rank, price, availability, or benchmark evidence changes are worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 6,100+ subscribers.

Compare Inkling 2 Small with every tracked model1015 comparisons