Claude Opus 5.5 (High, Default Fallback) vs Inkling Small
Which is better for the money: Claude Opus 5.5 (High, Default Fallback) by Anthropic or Inkling Small by Thinking Machines? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-25.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Claude Opus 5.5 (High, Default Fallback) scores 27.9 points higher (53.6 vs 25.7) but costs 9.0× as much to run the benchmark ($2172 vs $241; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Claude Opus 5.5 (High, Default Fallback) when you need intelligence above 25.7, and Inkling Small when 25.7 is enough.
| Metric | Claude Opus 5.5 (High, Default Fallback) | Inkling Small | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 53.6 | 25.7 | −52.1% Inkling Small is 52.1% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $2,172.43 | $240.85 | −88.9% Inkling Small is 88.9% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 30.38s | 12.68s | −58.3% Inkling Small is 58.3% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $4.00 / $20.0 | $0.30 / $1.20 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image, Speech |
Inkling Small vs Claude Opus 5.5 (High, Default Fallback): 52.1% less intelligence, 88.9% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 58.3% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Claude Opus 5.5 (High, Default Fallback) is on today's frontier: nothing is both smarter and cheaper.
- Inkling Small is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores 46.30 for $207.
Claude Opus 5.5 (High, Default Fallback)Inkling SmallToday's Pareto frontierOpen-weights frontierEvery other model
Matchup
Compare something else
Agents:
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/claude-opus-5-5-high/inkling-small · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-opus-5-5-high/inkling-small?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill