The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Claude Sonnet 5 vs Inkling-Small

Claude Sonnet 5 leads the LLM Stats Score 49.3 to 39.3. Inkling-Small is 7.6x cheaper per token.

Anthropic · Thinking Machines Lab · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Claude Sonnet 5 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 49.3 to 39.3, ranking #15 overall.

In the 6 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Claude Sonnet 5 wins 5; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

On price, Inkling-Small is roughly 7.6x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

Claude Sonnet 5 also accepts a larger context window (1,000,000 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.

Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.

Choose Claude Sonnet 5

  • overall performance matters — it scores 49.3 and ranks #15 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning and coding — it leads those capability indexes
  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 5 of 6 exact shared results
  • you process long inputs — it offers a 1,000,000 token context window

Choose Inkling-Small

  • cost matters — it's about 7.6x cheaper per token
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Jul 2026
  • you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Claude Sonnet 5
Anthropic
Inkling-Small
Thinking Machines Lab
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
49.3
#15
39.3
#53
Reasoning
48.8
#16
39.0
#52
Coding
39.8
#14
31.1
#45
Agents
33.7
#19
24.8
#45
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
5 of 6
1 of 6
Input price
$2.00 / M
$0.30 / M
Output price
$10.00 / M
$1.20 / M
Context window
1,000,000
256,000

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

4 shared
Index
Claude Sonnet 5
Inkling-Small
Math
36.5#36
34.2#46
Vision
34.4#12
19.6#64
Tool use
25.6#27
23.3#38
Multimodal
32.6#17
17.8#68
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

22 reported for Claude Sonnet 5 · 24 for Inkling-Small

6 shared

Claude Sonnet 5 outperforms in 5 benchmarks (BrowseComp, CharXiv-R, Humanity's Last Exam, SWE-Bench Pro, SWE-Bench Verified), while Inkling-Small is better at 1 benchmark (Toolathlon).

Claude Sonnet 5 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Fri Aug 28 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Inkling-Small costs less

For input processing, Claude Sonnet 5 ($2.00/1M tokens) is 6.7x more expensive than Inkling-Small ($0.30/1M tokens).

For output processing, Claude Sonnet 5 ($10.00/1M tokens) is 8.3x more expensive than Inkling-Small ($1.20/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Claude Sonnet 5 is more expensive than Inkling-Small.*

* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens

Lowest available price from all providers
Fri Aug 28 2026 • llm-stats.com
Anthropic
Claude Sonnet 5
Input tokens$2.00
Output tokens$10.00
Best providerAnthropic
Thinking Machines Lab
Inkling-Small
Input tokens$0.30
Output tokens$1.20
Best providerUnknown Organization
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Claude Sonnet 5 accepts 1,000,000 input tokens compared to Inkling-Small's 256,000 tokens. Inkling-Small can generate longer responses up to 256,000 tokens, while Claude Sonnet 5 is limited to 64,000 tokens.

Anthropic
Claude Sonnet 5
Input1,000,000 tokens
Output64,000 tokens
Thinking Machines Lab
Inkling-Small
Input256,000 tokens
Output256,000 tokens
Fri Aug 28 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Both Claude Sonnet 5 and Inkling-Small support multimodal inputs.

They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.

Claude Sonnet 5

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Inkling-Small

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Claude Sonnet 5 is licensed under a proprietary license, while Inkling-Small uses Apache 2.0.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

Claude Sonnet 5

Proprietary

Closed source

Inkling-Small

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude Sonnet 5 was released on 2026-06-30, while Inkling-Small was released on 2026-07-30.

Inkling-Small is 1 month newer than Claude Sonnet 5.

Claude Sonnet 5

Jun 30, 2026

1 months ago

Inkling-Small

Jul 30, 2026

4 weeks ago

1mo newer

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.

Unable to compare the recency of their training data.

No cutoff dates available

Provider Availability

Claude Sonnet 5 is available from Anthropic. Inkling-Small is available from Thinking Machines Lab.

Claude Sonnet 5

anthropic logo
Anthropic
Input Price:Input: $2.00/1MOutput Price:Output: $10.00/1M

Inkling-Small

thinking-machines logo
Unknown Organization
Input Price:Input: $0.30/1MOutput Price:Output: $1.20/1M
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Claude Sonnet 5 and Inkling-Small side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Claude Sonnet 5
✓ Preferred
Inkling-Small
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Claude Sonnet 5 vs Inkling-Small.

Which is better, Claude Sonnet 5 or Inkling-Small?

Claude Sonnet 5 leads the LLM Stats Score 49.3 to 39.3. Claude Sonnet 5 is made by Anthropic and Inkling-Small is made by Thinking Machines Lab. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits above.

How does Claude Sonnet 5 compare to Inkling-Small in benchmarks?

Claude Sonnet 5 scores CharXiv-R: 88.3%, ChartMuseum: 86.7%, SWE-Bench Verified: 85.2%, BrowseComp: 84.7%, GDP.pdf: 81.6%. Inkling-Small scores AIME 2026: 95.5%, VoiceBench Avg: 90.1%, GPQA: 89.5%, Global-MMLU-Lite: 86.7%, ARC-AGI: 84.0%.

Is Claude Sonnet 5 cheaper than Inkling-Small?

Inkling-Small is 6.7x cheaper for input tokens. Claude Sonnet 5 costs $2.00/M input and $10.00/M output via anthropic. Inkling-Small costs $0.30/M input and $1.20/M output via thinking-machines.

What are the context window sizes for Claude Sonnet 5 and Inkling-Small?

Claude Sonnet 5 supports 1.0M tokens and Inkling-Small supports 256K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between Claude Sonnet 5 and Inkling-Small?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (49.3 vs 39.3), context window (1.0M vs 256K), input pricing ($2.00 vs $0.30/M), licensing (Proprietary vs Apache 2.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Claude Sonnet 5 and Inkling-Small?

Claude Sonnet 5 is developed by Anthropic and Inkling-Small is developed by Thinking Machines Lab.

Related comparisons