Model comparison

Inkling-Small vs Qwen1.5-32B

Inkling-Small is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.5 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.

Inkling-Small Thinking Machines Lab

46.5

Rank #63 Confirmed

Qwen1.5-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

30.5

Rank #293 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Inkling-Small scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5-32B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Inkling-Small leads 48.2 to 13.5.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 88.5% for Inkling-Small and 30.7% for Qwen1.5-32B.

Side by side

Inkling-Small and Qwen1.5-32B specifications
Inkling-SmallQwen1.5-32B
ProviderThinking Machines LabAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index46.530.5
Released2026-07-152024-02-04
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window524K—
Max output1.05M—
Input $ / M tokens$0.45—
Output $ / M tokens$1.20—
Results tracked3321

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Inkling-Small leads

Inkling-Small: 43.6 (#85), Qwen1.5-32B: 31.7 (#282)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkInkling-SmallQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Coding14511155
LMArena WebDev1409—
SciCode48.7%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—32.3%
BigCodeBench Complete—42%

Reasoning Inkling-Small leads

Inkling-Small: 38.6 (#63), Qwen1.5-32B: 21.8 (#212)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkInkling-SmallQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Hard Prompts14231130
ARC-AGI-240.1%—
ARC-AGI-184%—
CritPt8.3%—
Chess Puzzles18%—
Mystery Game Puzzles6%—
Epoch Capabilities Index150.15—

Math Inkling-Small leads

Inkling-Small: 45.1 (#77), Qwen1.5-32B: 33.0 (#207)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkInkling-SmallQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Math14591155
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)46.3%—
FrontierMath Tier 417.1%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202590%—
ProofBench6%—

Knowledge Inkling-Small leads

Inkling-Small: 48.2 (#77), Qwen1.5-32B: 13.5 (#296)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkInkling-SmallQwen1.5-32B
GPQA Diamond88.5%30.7%
LMArena Expert14421126
SimpleQA Verified19.1%—
MMLU—74.4%

Multimodal Not comparable

Inkling-Small: 39.1 (#62), Qwen1.5-32B: —

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkInkling-SmallQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Vision1235—

Multilingual Inkling-Small leads

Inkling-Small: 51.7 (#104), Qwen1.5-32B: 31.4 (#259)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkInkling-SmallQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Non-English14021106
LMArena Chinese14651177
LMArena French14361101
LMArena German14051058
LMArena Japanese14051027
LMArena Korean13631008
LMArena Russian13911073
LMArena Spanish14281089

Instruction Following Inkling-Small leads

Inkling-Small: 73.8 (#114), Qwen1.5-32B: 57.7 (#265)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkInkling-SmallQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Instruction Following13991116

Long Context Inkling-Small leads

Inkling-Small: 42.7 (#118), Qwen1.5-32B: 34.7 (#246)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkInkling-SmallQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Longer Query14011146

Writing & Preference Inkling-Small leads

Inkling-Small: 59.6 (#107), Qwen1.5-32B: 34.2 (#271)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkInkling-SmallQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Text14141137
LMArena Creative Writing13311083
LMArena Multi-Turn14181140
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1491—

Frequently asked questions

Is Inkling-Small better than Qwen1.5-32B?

Inkling-Small is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.5 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.

Is Inkling-Small or Qwen1.5-32B better for coding?

Inkling-Small scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.6 versus 31.7 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Inkling-Small and Qwen1.5-32B share?

18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Inkling-Small has 33 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-32B has 21.

Related comparisons

Go deeper