Capability
63.5/100
field median 58
#43 of 224 ranked models
Five or fewer confirmed AI changes, with original sources, on mornings when something changed.A free source-linked morning brief.
Start free briefReleased Jul 30, 2026 — see all recent releases
Data as of August 22, 2026 · How the score is built
Instruction Following ranks #3. A well-rounded choice across a range of tasks.
20 published rows leave some tracked benchmark slots empty. Independent runtime speed has not been measured.
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
63.5/100
field median 58
#43 of 224 ranked models
Price
$0.58input / $1.44 output
input median $1
cached $0.12 · blended $1.01
Speed
Not measured
field median 91.5 tok/s
Time to first token not measured
Context
1Mtokens
field median 200,000
Reported for this model; direct source link not stored
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-Small category percentile values
The dashed outline is median of 6 nearest peers.
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.
The chart opens on the current model. Scroll horizontally to inspect the full price axis.
Horizontal: blended price per million tokens, log scale · Vertical: public score
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.
Each documented value carries its source. Missing fields stay visible as not sourced or not published, rather than disappearing from the page.
Self-host and provider-specific paths stay separate from benchmark evidence so operating constraints are visible before a score becomes the whole decision.
Published weights are available, but BenchLM does not yet have a sourced parameter and VRAM profile for this exact model. Hardware cost estimates stay unavailable until that sizing record is complete.
Estimate VRAM from known parametersScores and ranks appear only where published evidence can be displayed. The table keeps the score, weight, cohort, and evidence state together.
| Category | Score | Rank | Percentile | Weight | Benchmarks | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AgenticRank #105 of 137Percentile 24thWeight 22%4 benchmarksVerified | 40.6 | #105 of 137 | 24th | 22% | 4 benchmarks | Verified |
| CodingRank #50 of 141Percentile 65thWeight 20%4 benchmarksVerified | 53.6 | #50 of 141 | 65th | 20% | 4 benchmarks | Verified |
| ReasoningRank Not rankedWeight 17%2 benchmarksVerified | 37.1 | Not ranked | Not available | 17% | 2 benchmarks | Verified |
| KnowledgeRank Not rankedWeight 12%4 benchmarksVerified | 72.0 | Not ranked | Not available | 12% | 4 benchmarks | Verified |
| MathRank Not rankedWeight 5%2 benchmarksVerified | 77.1 | Not ranked | Not available | 5% | 2 benchmarks | Verified |
| MultilingualWeight 7%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | Not ranked | Not available | 7% | 0 benchmarks | Not measured |
| MultimodalRank #25 of 34Percentile 27thWeight 12%3 benchmarksVerified | 51.2 | #25 of 34 | 27th | 12% | 3 benchmarks | Verified |
| Inst. FollowingRank #3 of 41Percentile 95thWeight 5%1 benchmarkVerified | 96.4 | #3 of 41 | 95th | 5% | 1 benchmark | Verified |
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.
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSoftware Engineering Benchmark Verified | Score80.2% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 96% | Gap15.8 behind | WeightWeighted 16% | Provider exact |
| SciCodeScientific Code Benchmark | Score48.7% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Sakana Fugu · 60.1% | Gap11.4 behind | WeightWeighted 16% | Provider exact |
| SWE-bench Pro | Score55.9% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Mythos 5 · 80.3% | Gap24.4 behind | WeightWeighted 10% | Provider exact |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0 | Score64.7% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-5.6 Sol · 91.9% | Gap27.2 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0 | Score64.7% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-5.6 Sol · 91.9% | Gap27.2 behind | WeightWeighted 38% | Provider exact |
| BrowseComp | Score77.4% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-5.6 Sol · 92.2% | Gap14.8 behind | WeightWeighted 28% | Provider exact |
| MCP Atlas | Score79.6% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Muse Spark 1.1 · 88.1% | Gap8.5 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| Toolathlon-Verified | Score54.4% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 80.6% | Gap26.2 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus for AGI v2 | Score40.1% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-5.6 Sol · 92.5% | Gap52.4 behind | WeightWeighted 31% | Provider exact |
| CritPtCritical Physics Tasks | Score8.3% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GLM-5.2 · 20.9% | Gap12.6 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HLEHumanity's Last Exam | Score47.8% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 64.7% | Gap16.9 behind | WeightWeighted 45% | Provider exact |
| GPQAGraduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A | Score89.5% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Sakana Fugu-Ultra · 95.5% | Gap6 behind | WeightWeighted 7% | Provider exact |
| GPQA-DGPQA Diamond | Score89.5% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Sakana Fugu-Ultra · 95.5% | Gap6 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| HLE w/o toolsHumanity's Last Exam without tools | Score31.6% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Mythos 5 · 59% | Gap27.4 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AIME26AIME 2026 | Score95.5% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GLM-5.2 · 99.2% | Gap3.7 behind | WeightWeighted 25% | Provider exact |
| HMMT Feb 2026Harvard-MIT Mathematics Tournament February 2026 | Score90.2% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Qwen3.7 Max · 97.1% | Gap6.9 behind | WeightWeighted 25% | Provider exact |
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProMassive Multi-discipline Multimodal Understanding Pro | Score74% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-5.4 Pro · 94% | Gap20 behind | WeightWeighted 45% | Provider exact |
| CharXivCharXiv Reasoning | Score81.3% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Mythos 5 · 93.5% | Gap12.2 behind | WeightWeighted 25% | Provider exact |
| CharXiv w/o toolsCharXiv Reasoning without tools | Score77.4% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Mythos 5 · 88.9% | Gap11.5 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IFBenchInstruction Following Benchmark | Score82.2% | Versus best verified row Best verified: MAI-Thinking-1 · 85% | Gap2.8 behind | WeightWeighted 65% | Provider exact |
The sequence follows explicit supersedes links. Scores and prices remain blank when the corresponding public row or first-party rate is unavailable.
Jul 30, 2026 · you are here
Inkling-SmallScore 63.5 · $0.58 / $1.44
small · Small
The visual layer above carries the decisions. These notes preserve the model, ranking, coverage, and family context behind the numbers.
Inkling-Small ranks #43 of 224 on the public leaderboard with a score of 63.48/100. Its source-verified position is #33 of 104.
Inkling-Small is a open weight model with a 1M context window. No explicit reasoning mode is documented in this profile.
Thinking Machines Lab released BF16 and NVFP4 weights under Apache 2.0; the model also supports MXFP8 numerics. Tinker offers 64K and 256K fine-tuning tiers, playground access, and a 256K beta serverless endpoint. The open checkpoint supports up to 1M tokens.
Official exact-value snapshot from Thinking Machines Lab's July 30, 2026 Inkling-Small launch post at effort=0.99. We map the published HLE text-only and with-tools rows to hleNoTools and hle, GPQA Diamond to both the weighted GPQA lane and its exact display key, Terminal-Bench 2.1 Best Harness to the existing Terminal-Bench 2 slot, and CharXiv RQ with and without Python to charxiv and charxivNoTools. SimpleQA Verified, Global-MMLU-Lite, ARC-AGI-1, audio, forecasting, safety, and externally sourced index rows stay out of the model's fields where the local schema lacks an exact compatible key or keeps the source in a separate refresh pipeline.
Inkling-Small sits in the Inkling family with Inkling. 20 of 402 tracked benchmark slots currently have displayable evidence. Missing categories stay blank.
Its strongest eligible category is Instruction Following at #3, while its lowest eligible position is Agentic at #105. a well-rounded choice across a range of tasks.
Thinking Machines Lab · Model release
Inkling-Small ranks #43 out of 224 models on the public BenchAlign leaderboard, with a score of 63.48/100. Its evidence status is Supported, and this profile shows 20 source-displayable benchmark rows. The label describes evidence depth, not a provider quality claim; inspect category rows before choosing a workload.
Inkling-Small has source-displayable benchmark coverage for knowledge and understanding, 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.
Inkling-Small ranks #50 out of 141 eligible models for coding and programming, with a public category score of 53.6/100. 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.
Inkling-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.
Inkling-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.
Inkling-Small ranks #105 out of 137 eligible models for agentic tool use and computer tasks, with a public category score of 40.6/100. 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.
Inkling-Small ranks #25 out of 34 eligible models for multimodal and grounded tasks, with a public category score of 51.2/100. 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.
Inkling-Small ranks #3 out of 41 eligible models for instruction following, with a public category score of 96.4/100. That places it in the current top ten for this category. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.
Inkling-Small is an open-weight model from Thinking Machines Lab. Its weights can be downloaded for local or hosted deployment, subject to the published license. Open weight does not automatically mean open source: training data and training code may remain private, and commercial restrictions can still apply.
Inkling-Small belongs to the Inkling family. Related tracked variants include Inkling. 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.
No. Inkling-Small currently has 33 source-displayable rows across 402 tracked benchmark slots. 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.
Inkling-Small has a reported context window of 1M in the exact-model catalog record. The value stays visible, but the profile marks its source link as unavailable instead of presenting it as directly documented. Maximum output length remains separate because providers often publish a different limit.
Related resources
Last updated August 22, 2026. Runtime fields remain blank until a sourced snapshot exists.
Get one weekly email when material rank, price, availability, or benchmark evidence changes are worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.