Inkling 2 Small vs Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Inkling 2 Small leads the LLM Stats Score 47.2 to 4.6. Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is 1.3x cheaper per token.
Thinking Machines Lab · Meta · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
Inkling 2 Small leads the overall LLM Stats Score 47.2 to 4.6, ranking #39 overall.
In the 2 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Inkling 2 Small wins 2; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.
On price, Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is roughly 1.3x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.
Inkling 2 Small also accepts a larger context window (256,000 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 Inkling 2 Small
- overall performance matters — it scores 47.2 and ranks #39 on LLM Stats
- your work emphasizes reasoning — it leads those capability indexes
- you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 2 of 2 exact shared results
- you process long inputs — it offers a 256,000 token context window
- you want the most recent training data — it shipped Nov 2026
Choose Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
- cost matters — it's about 1.3x cheaper per token
- you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune
At a glance
The differences that matter most.
Capability indexes
Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks
Individual benchmarks
11 reported for Inkling 2 Small · 13 for Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Inkling 2 Small outperforms in 2 benchmarks (GPQA, MMMU-Pro), while Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is better at 0 benchmarks.
Inkling 2 Small significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.
Human preference
Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores
Pricing Analysis
Price comparison per million tokens
For input processing, Inkling 2 Small ($0.30/1M tokens) is 1.2x cheaper than Llama 3.2 90B Instruct ($0.35/1M tokens).
For output processing, Inkling 2 Small ($1.00/1M tokens) is 2.5x more expensive than Llama 3.2 90B Instruct ($0.40/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Inkling 2 Small is more expensive than Llama 3.2 90B Instruct.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Model Size
Parameter count comparison
Inkling 2 Small has 504.0B more parameters than Llama 3.2 90B Instruct, making it 560.0% larger.
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
Inkling 2 Small accepts 256,000 input tokens compared to Llama 3.2 90B Instruct's 128,000 tokens. Only Llama 3.2 90B Instruct specifies output context (128,000 tokens).
Input capabilities
Documented input modalities across available providers
Both Inkling 2 Small and Llama 3.2 90B Instruct support multimodal inputs.
They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.
Inkling 2 Small
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
License
Usage and distribution terms
Inkling 2 Small is licensed under a proprietary license, while Llama 3.2 90B Instruct uses Llama 3.2.
License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.
Proprietary
Closed source
Llama 3.2
Open weights
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
Inkling 2 Small was released on 2026-11-05, while Llama 3.2 90B Instruct was released on 2024-09-25.
Inkling 2 Small is 26 months newer than Llama 3.2 90B Instruct.
Nov 5, 2026
3 days ago
2.1yr newerSep 25, 2024
2.1 years ago
Knowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.
Unable to compare the recency of their training data.
Provider Availability
Inkling 2 Small is available from Thinking Machines Lab. Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is available from DeepInfra, Bedrock, Fireworks, Together, Hyperbolic.
Inkling 2 Small
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against Inkling 2 Small and Llama 3.2 90B Instruct side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about Inkling 2 Small vs Llama 3.2 90B Instruct.