Inkling 2 Small vs Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct
Inkling 2 Small leads the LLM Stats Score 47.2 to 1.5. Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct is 5.3x cheaper per token.
Thinking Machines Lab · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
Inkling 2 Small leads the overall LLM Stats Score 47.2 to 1.5, ranking #39 overall.
On price, Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct is roughly 5.3x 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 and coding — it leads those capability indexes
- you process long inputs — it offers a 256,000 token context window
- you want the most recent training data — it shipped Nov 2026
Choose Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct
- cost matters — it's about 5.3x cheaper per token
- you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune
At a glance
The differences that matter most.
Individual benchmarks
11 reported for Inkling 2 Small · 15 for Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct
Inkling 2 Small and Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instructdon't have any common benchmark datasets to compare. They may have been evaluated on different testing suites.
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 3.3x more expensive than Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct ($0.09/1M tokens).
For output processing, Inkling 2 Small ($1.00/1M tokens) is 11.1x more expensive than Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct ($0.09/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Inkling 2 Small is more expensive than Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Model Size
Parameter count comparison
Inkling 2 Small has 562.0B more parameters than Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct, making it 1756.3% larger.
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
Inkling 2 Small accepts 256,000 input tokens compared to Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct's 128,000 tokens. Only Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct specifies output context (128,000 tokens).
Input capabilities
Documented input modalities across available providers
Inkling 2 Small supports multimodal inputs, whereas Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct does not.
Inkling 2 Small can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.
Inkling 2 Small
Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct
License
Usage and distribution terms
Inkling 2 Small is licensed under a proprietary license, while Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct uses Apache 2.0.
License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.
Proprietary
Closed source
Apache 2.0
Open weights
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
Inkling 2 Small was released on 2026-11-05, while Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct was released on 2024-09-19.
Inkling 2 Small is 26 months newer than Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct.
Nov 5, 2026
3 days ago
2.1yr newerSep 19, 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. Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct is available from Lambda, DeepInfra, Hyperbolic, Fireworks.
Inkling 2 Small
Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against Inkling 2 Small and Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about Inkling 2 Small vs Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct.