Noometry

Model comparison

Inkling-Small vs Qwen3.6 27B

Inkling-Small is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.5 to 42.2 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 8 shared benchmarks.

Inkling-Small Thinking Machines Lab

46.5

Rank #63 Confirmed

Qwen3.6 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

42.2

Rank #117 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 8 benchmarks with published results for both. Inkling-Small scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen3.6 27B in 2 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Inkling-Small leads 38.6 to 25.0.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is SciCode: 48.7% for Inkling-Small and 37.3% for Qwen3.6 27B.
  • Inkling-Small is cheaper at $0.45 / $1.20 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $3.60 for Qwen3.6 27B.
  • Inkling-Small accepts more context: 524K tokens versus 262K.

Side by side

Inkling-SmallQwen3.6 27B
ProviderThinking Machines LabAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index46.542.2
Released2026-07-152026-04-22
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window524K262K
Max output1.05M66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.45$0.60
Output $ / M tokens$1.20$3.60
Results tracked3311

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

Category by category

Coding Inkling-Small leads

Inkling-Small: 43.6 (#85), Qwen3.6 27B: 39.1 (#163)

BenchmarkInkling-SmallQwen3.6 27B
SciCode48.7%37.3%
LMArena WebDev1409—
LMArena Coding1451—

Reasoning Inkling-Small leads

Inkling-Small: 38.6 (#63), Qwen3.6 27B: 25.0 (#153)

BenchmarkInkling-SmallQwen3.6 27B
CritPt8.3%0.9%
Chess Puzzles18%22%
Mystery Game Puzzles6%7%
Epoch Capabilities Index150.15146.5
ARC-AGI-240.1%—
ARC-AGI-184%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1423—
DTBench—78.1%
LMCA—34.5%

Math Qwen3.6 27B leads

Inkling-Small: 45.1 (#77), Qwen3.6 27B: 48.5 (#62)

BenchmarkInkling-SmallQwen3.6 27B
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)46.3%35.1%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202590%91.1%
FrontierMath Tier 417.1%—
ProofBench6%—
LMArena Math1459—

Knowledge Qwen3.6 27B leads

Inkling-Small: 48.2 (#77), Qwen3.6 27B: 52.4 (#63)

BenchmarkInkling-SmallQwen3.6 27B
GPQA Diamond88.5%85.9%
SimpleQA Verified19.1%—
LMArena Expert1442—

Multimodal Not comparable

Inkling-Small: 39.1 (#62), Qwen3.6 27B: —

BenchmarkInkling-SmallQwen3.6 27B
LMArena Vision1235—

Multilingual Not comparable

Inkling-Small: 51.7 (#104), Qwen3.6 27B: —

BenchmarkInkling-SmallQwen3.6 27B
LMArena Non-English1402—
LMArena Chinese1465—
LMArena French1436—
LMArena German1405—
LMArena Japanese1405—
LMArena Korean1363—
LMArena Russian1391—
LMArena Spanish1428—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Inkling-Small: 73.8 (#114), Qwen3.6 27B: —

BenchmarkInkling-SmallQwen3.6 27B
LMArena Instruction Following1399—

Long Context Not comparable

Inkling-Small: 42.7 (#118), Qwen3.6 27B: —

BenchmarkInkling-SmallQwen3.6 27B
LMArena Longer Query1401—

Writing & Preference Inkling-Small leads

Inkling-Small: 59.6 (#107), Qwen3.6 27B: 50.3 (#181)

BenchmarkInkling-SmallQwen3.6 27B
LMArena Text1414—
LMArena Creative Writing1331—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1491—
EQ-Bench 4—1026
LMArena Multi-Turn1418—

Frequently asked questions

Is Inkling-Small better than Qwen3.6 27B?

Inkling-Small is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.5 to 42.2 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Inkling-Small or Qwen3.6 27B?

Inkling-Small is cheaper. It lists at $0.45 per million input tokens and $1.20 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 27B lists at $0.60 and $3.60.

Is Inkling-Small or Qwen3.6 27B better for coding?

Inkling-Small scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.6 versus 39.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Inkling-Small does, with 524K tokens against 262K.

How many benchmarks do Inkling-Small and Qwen3.6 27B share?

8 benchmarks have published results for both models. Inkling-Small has 33 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 27B has 11.

Related comparisons

Go deeper