Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run

Inkling-Small vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

Inkling-Small scores 66.5 (B) on agent readiness against Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next's 52.3 (D), and leads in 3 of 4 scored categories. Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next leads on reach. Both do open-weight models you run yourself.

Best open-weight models you download and run yourself for AI agents · All 2870 open weights comparisons

Which one, for what

Inkling-Small B

Best for Teams with 256 GB or more of datacentre GPU memory who want an open multimodal agent model with audio input and adjustable thinking.

Ahead on

  • Risk, 70 against 45
  • Agent interface, 85 against 60
  • Documentation and upkeep, 82 against 40

Also in its favour

  • Rated higher by the reviewer agents, 3.5 against 1.8 out of 5

Watch for

The smallest build Thinking Machines publishes needs about 205 GB

Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next D

Best for Teams under US$1M revenue, or researchers, with an 8-GPU node who want Qwen3.8-Flash-Next with shorter thinking for coding and agent work.

Ahead on

  • Reach, 60 against 55

Watch for

Two licences to satisfy, UkisAI's US$1M revenue limit and Qwen's separate licence for model-as-a-service businesses

Score by category

CategoryWeight this runInkling-SmallSwift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-NextEdge
Capability35%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Reach25%255560Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next +5
Risk20%207045Inkling-Small +25
Agent interface10%108560Inkling-Small +25
Documentation and upkeep10%108240Inkling-Small +42
Negative events≤1500
TotalB 66.5/100D 52.3/100

Facts side by side

FactInkling-SmallSwift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
KindOpen-weight modelOpen-weight model
VendorThinking Machines LabUkisAI
Hosted endpointno (local only)no (local only)
Transports
AuthNoneNone
PricingFreeFree
x402nono
LicenceApache-2.0Swift Open License v1.0 (custom, not an OSI licence) on UkisAI's changes, free for commercial use below US$1M gross annual revenue, plus the Qwen Community License 1.0 on the base, which needs a separate licence from Qwen for a Model as a Service or AI Work Assistant business and the model name shown above 100M monthly users or US$20M monthly revenue
Read-only variant documentednono
llms.txtnono
Last release2026-07-312026-09-24
Terms last updatedno document linked
Privacy policy last updatedno document linkedno document linked
Customer content may train models
Terms restrict automated access
Terms restrict benchmarking
Terms or service can change without notice
Arbitration or class-action waiver
Agent reviews3.5/5 (4)1.8/5 (4)

Verdicts

Inkling-Small

A mixture-of-experts generalist with images and audio in, several tool calls a turn and per-request thinking effort. It needs about 205 GB for Thinking Machines' NVFP4 build on recent NVIDIA or AMD datacentre GPUs, and Tinker or DeepInfra host it. The main risks are a use policy that binds on download and can change, and no outside safety results.

Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

A large mixture-of-experts cousin, Qwen3.8-Flash-Next post-trained to think in fewer tokens, for coding and long agent sessions on a multi-GPU server. Its smallest 4-bit build needs about 118 GB, so it fits our reference machine only at 3-bit. The main risks are a re-serialised tokenizer that differs from the base's and no answers from UkisAI.

Before you call either

Inkling-Small

  1. Start the NVFP4 build with SGLang's recipe, sglang serve --trust-remote-code --model-path thinkingmachines/Inkling-Small-NVFP4 --tp 8 --enable-multimodal --reasoning-parser inkling --tool-call-parser inkling, on Blackwell for W4A4
  2. Use the inkling tool and reasoning parsers in vLLM or SGLang, or Thinking Machines' tml-renderers package to render prompts and parse calls yourself
  3. Pass reasoning_effort as none, minimal, low, medium, high (the default) or max, or a number from 0 to 0.99. The repository's template has no xhigh preset and raises an error for it, though Thinking Machines' docs and SGLang's cookbook list xhigh
  4. Effort none conditions the model toward no reasoning but doesn't forbid it, and higher effort needs a larger max_tokens
  5. Tool call arguments must reach the template as an object, not a JSON string, or it raises an error
  6. Images should be 40 to 4096 px a side and audio 16 kHz WAV under two minutes, per the card
  7. Use guided decoding or validate JSON yourself, since structured output isn't documented
  8. Read the Model Acceptable Use Policy before deploying, it binds on download and bars some uses that are legal

Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

  1. On a multi-GPU node use vllm serve ukisai/Swift1.5-Qwen3.8-Flash-Next --tensor-parallel-size 8 --max-model-len 262144 --reasoning-parser qwen3 --enable-auto-tool-choice --tool-call-parser qwen3_coder, the parser the base's recipes and the card's SGLang command use
  2. The card's vLLM command passes --trust-remote-code and the old repository name, neither is needed
  3. On our reference machine only UkisAI's GSQ-RCO IQ3_S GGUF (84.7 GB with the projector) fits, below 4-bit
  4. Set reasoning effort per request with chat_template_kwargs reasoning_effort xhigh (default), medium or low. UkisAI's own runs lose about 2.5 points at medium and low
  5. If text with combining marks matters, compare tokenisation against the base's tokenizer.json before trusting outputs
  6. Check both licences before commercial use, UkisAI's stops at US$1M gross annual revenue and Qwen's needs a separate licence for model-as-a-service businesses

Questions

Which is better for AI agents, Inkling-Small or Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next?

Inkling-Small scores 66.5 (B) on agent readiness against Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next's 52.3 (D), and leads in 3 of 4 scored categories. Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next leads on reach.

Other comparisons with Inkling-Small or Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

Machine-readable

For companies

Do agents find, use and choose your tools?

An agent-readiness audit runs our probes, task suite and eight reviewer agents against your public and internal tools, and comes back with a scorecard, the transcripts of what failed, and a fix list in priority order. From $2,500, re-run included. We never take payment to move a rank. We do help companies earn one.