Noometry

Model comparison

Inkling vs Qwen3.6 27B

Inkling is the stronger model overall, scoring 44.1 to 42.2 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.6 27B costs 1.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Inkling's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 10 shared benchmarks.

Inkling Thinking Machines Lab

44.1

Rank #80 Confirmed

Qwen3.6 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

42.2

Rank #117 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 10 benchmarks with published results for both. Inkling scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen3.6 27B in 2 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.6 27B leads 48.5 to 31.3.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is SciCode: 47% for Inkling and 37.3% for Qwen3.6 27B.
  • Qwen3.6 27B is cheaper at $0.60 / $3.60 per million input/output tokens, against $1.87 / $4.68 for Inkling.
  • Qwen3.6 27B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 66K.

Side by side

InklingQwen3.6 27B
ProviderThinking Machines LabAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index44.142.2
Released2026-07-152026-04-22
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window66K262K
Max output66K66K
Input $ / M tokens$1.87$0.60
Output $ / M tokens$4.68$3.60
Results tracked4111

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.6 27B leads

Inkling: 34.5 (#234), Qwen3.6 27B: 39.1 (#163)

BenchmarkInklingQwen3.6 27B
SciCode47%37.3%
FrontierCode14%—
LMArena WebDev1413—
FrontierSWE4.1%—
WeirdML32.3%—
LMArena Coding1464—
ALE-Bench946—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Inkling: 29.6 (#85), Qwen3.6 27B: —

BenchmarkInklingQwen3.6 27B
APEX-Agents33.8%—
τ²-bench Banking25%—

Reasoning Inkling leads

Inkling: 40.4 (#56), Qwen3.6 27B: 25.0 (#153)

BenchmarkInklingQwen3.6 27B
CritPt5.4%0.9%
Chess Puzzles21%22%
DTBench87.5%78.1%
LMCA37.6%34.5%
Epoch Capabilities Index148.54146.5
ARC-AGI-236.5%—
SimpleBench50%—
ARC-AGI-179.5%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1451—
Mystery Game Puzzles—7%

Math Qwen3.6 27B leads

Inkling: 31.3 (#225), Qwen3.6 27B: 48.5 (#62)

BenchmarkInklingQwen3.6 27B
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)33.3%35.1%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202588.9%91.1%
FrontierMath Tier 44.9%—
ProofBench0%—
LMArena Math1479—

Knowledge Inkling leads

Inkling: 55.1 (#49), Qwen3.6 27B: 52.4 (#63)

BenchmarkInklingQwen3.6 27B
GPQA Diamond88.3%85.9%
SimpleQA Verified40.3%—
LMArena Expert1465—

Multilingual Not comparable

Inkling: 54.0 (#52), Qwen3.6 27B: —

BenchmarkInklingQwen3.6 27B
LMArena Non-English1434—
LMArena Chinese1490—
LMArena French1458—
LMArena German1446—
LMArena Japanese1429—
LMArena Korean1404—
LMArena Russian1429—
LMArena Spanish1448—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Inkling: 75.1 (#71), Qwen3.6 27B: —

BenchmarkInklingQwen3.6 27B
LMArena Instruction Following1426—

Long Context Not comparable

Inkling: 43.8 (#86), Qwen3.6 27B: —

BenchmarkInklingQwen3.6 27B
LMArena Longer Query1434—

Writing & Preference Inkling leads

Inkling: 65.2 (#51), Qwen3.6 27B: 50.3 (#181)

BenchmarkInklingQwen3.6 27B
EQ-Bench 412261026
LMArena Text1441—
LMArena Creative Writing1387—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1611—
LMArena Multi-Turn1436—

Frequently asked questions

Is Inkling better than Qwen3.6 27B?

Inkling is the stronger model overall, scoring 44.1 to 42.2 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.6 27B costs 1.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Inkling's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

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

Qwen3.6 27B is cheaper. It lists at $0.60 per million input tokens and $3.60 per million output tokens; Inkling lists at $1.87 and $4.68.

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

Qwen3.6 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.1 versus 34.5 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.6 27B does, with 262K tokens against 66K.

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

10 benchmarks have published results for both models. Inkling has 41 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 27B has 11.

Related comparisons

Go deeper