Qwen3.8 27B vs Inkling

At a Glance

Compare
InklingThinking Machines Lab
Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency
IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v2.5#30 of 4654.0 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 36.0–69.4#34 of 4645.4 score · 3/3 sources · complete
CostLower is better · Published-token output estimate#16 of 44$0.072 per LiveBench case#18 of 44$0.090 per LiveBench case
EfficiencyHigher is better · MM Efficiency v1.5#17 of 3854.8 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 45.8–62.5#28 of 3848.1 score · 3/3 sources · complete
Pricing and Limits
Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens$0.20Deepinfra · Sep 21, 2026$0.95Deepinfra · Sep 21, 2026
Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens$2.50Deepinfra · Sep 21, 2026$4.05Deepinfra · Sep 21, 2026
Context windowMaximum documented tokens262K1,049K
Model facts checkedAug 28, 2026View model evidence →Sep 3, 2026View model evidence →

Token prices are the lowest available sourced USD rates; input and output may use different providers. Cost ranking estimates output spend on LiveBench, not a full request bill. Ranking methodology →

Available Benchmarks

All benchmark results →
BenchmarkQwen3.8-27BInkling
LMArena Agent Arenaagent-2026-09-15-d25aabda0010 · outcome_score · leader-0.64100% of row best · score · Qwen 3.8 27B; 95% CI [-1.36495564, 0.07819043]; sessions 37257; observations 4349219; rank 29-10.0291% of row best · score · Inkling; 95% CI [-10.93664189, -9.10513108]; sessions 42313; observations 1624204; rank 42
LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-13-d25aabda0010 · arena_rating · statistical tie1,439.27100% of row best · rating · qwen3.8-27b; 95% CI [1432.84410050, 1445.69542028]; votes 10697; rank 681,439.68100% of row best · rating · inkling; 95% CI [1434.76600975, 1444.58550789]; votes 25922; rank 67
LiveBench2026-06-25 · overall · leader78.02100% of row best · percent · qwen3.8-27b · 28,740 output tokens / case76.4798% of row best · percent · inkling-xhigh · 22,213 output tokens / case
Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above · 1 tie2 benchmark winsOverall lead0 benchmark wins

Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.

Side-by-Side Facts

FieldQwen3.8-27BInkling
DeveloperQwenThinking Machines Lab
FamilyQwen3 8 27bInkling
ModelQwen3.8-27BInkling
VersionQwen3.8-27BInkling
Lifecycleactiveactive
ReleasedUnknown2026-07-15
Knowledge cutoffUnknownUnknown
Input modalitiesText, ImageText, Image, Video, Audio
Output modalitiesTextText
Context window262K1,049K
Total parameters27.8B975B
Active parametersUnknown41B
Licenseapache-2.0apache-2.0
Open weightsYesYes
API availableYesYes
Self-hostableYesYes
Provider accessDeepinfra (Standard), Hugging Face (Standard), Openrouter (Standard)Deepinfra (Standard), Fireworks Ai (Standard), Openrouter (Standard), Together Ai (Standard)
Capabilitieschat, generation, reasoning, toolsagents, chat, coding, generation, reasoning, tools, vision

Qwen3.8 27B Capabilities

chatgenerationreasoningtools
Serving providers3
Canonical IDQwen/Qwen3.8-27B

Inkling Capabilities

agentschatcodinggenerationreasoningtoolsvision
Serving providers4
Canonical IDthinkingmachines/Inkling

Primary Evidence

Sources and Freshness

Questions

Qwen3.8 27B vs Inkling FAQs

Is Qwen3.8 27B or Inkling better for coding?+

This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Qwen3.8 27B and Inkling, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.

Which is cheaper, Qwen3.8 27B or Inkling?+

Qwen3.8 27B is $0.20 and Inkling is $0.95 per million tokens, so Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper on this metric. Qwen3.8 27B is $2.50 and Inkling is $4.05 per million tokens, so Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper on this metric.

Which has a larger context window, Qwen3.8 27B or Inkling?+

Inkling has the larger sourced context window. Qwen3.8 27B supports 262K and Inkling supports 1,049K.

Which performs better in benchmarks, Qwen3.8 27B or Inkling?+

Qwen3.8 27B leads the current overall benchmark count. The result uses 3 protocol-matched benchmarks from 2 publishers; it is not a universal quality score.

Can Qwen3.8 27B or Inkling be self-hosted?+

Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: supported. Qwen3.8 27B is open weight; Inkling is open weight.

Can Qwen3.8 27B and Inkling understand images?+

Qwen3.8 27B is documented with image input; Inkling is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.

Which can generate longer answers, Qwen3.8 27B or Inkling?+

Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Qwen3.8 27B is 131K and Inkling is —.

Do Qwen3.8 27B and Inkling support reasoning and tool use?+

Qwen3.8 27B: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Inkling: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.

Which is available from more inference providers, Qwen3.8 27B or Inkling?+

Qwen3.8 27B has 3 sourced provider routes; Inkling has 4, so Inkling has broader tracked availability.

Which offers better value, Qwen3.8 27B or Inkling?+

There is no universal value winner. Compare the input and output prices above with the matched benchmark result for your workload: cheaper tokens can be offset by different quality, token usage, latency, or provider availability.

Send Feedback