Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
Inkling vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
Inkling scores 64.7 (B) on agent readiness against Ling-3.1-flash-1019's 54.8 (C), and leads in 3 of 4 scored categories. Ling-3.1-flash-1019 leads on reach. Both do open-weight models you run yourself.
Best open-weight models you download and run yourself for AI agents · All 4969 open weights comparisons
Which one, for what
Inkling B
Best for Agents calling a hosted open multimodal model with audio input, or teams with a multi-GPU datacentre node who want to run it themselves.
Ahead on
- Risk, 70 against 45
- Agent interface, 85 against 60
- Documentation and upkeep, 87 against 56
Watch for
The smallest build Thinking Machines publishes needs about 710 GB, beyond any single workstation
Best for Teams with a multi-GPU server that want an MIT-licensed flagship for long agent runs and coding
Ahead on
- Reach, 60 against 50
Watch for
574 GB in FP8 with no smaller build from inclusionAI, so no single machine under 690 GB of GPU memory runs it
Why the edge
Each category where one leads by five points or more, with the reason behind each side's score from its assessment. The numbers are in the table below; this is what they stand for.
Documentation and upkeep Inkling +31
Inkling 87
Model card 17 of 20, everything but a dated knowledge cut-off, counting Thinking Machines' own model card page. Training data 15, an EU training-content summary with sources, mix, a July 2026 collection cut-off and filtering. Last change 20, the weights files last changed on 23 July 2026, and Thinking Machines' Inkling renderer in tinker-cookbook changed on 30 October 2026, 3 days ago. Responsiveness 20, Thinking Machines answered 8 of the 12 questions and reports in its discussions. Version policy 5, a first release. File health 10, the files agree and the reports were answered.
Ling-3.1-flash-1019 56
Model card 11, Intended use (complex reasoning, multi-step tasks and agentic workflows), architecture, parameters (560B total, 25B active) and context (1M claimed) are on the card. Training data 15, the training-content summary the card links names the source categories (Common Crawl and other public datasets, commercially licensed data, the Ant Spider crawler, synthetic data), the size band (over 10 trillion text tokens), data collected up to about July 2026 and the filtering, without listing datasets with sizes. Last change 20, the newest commit, on 4 November 2026, edited the card, six days before this check, and the files went up on 27 October. Responsiveness 0, Neither of the 2 discussions that aren't pull requests (both opened on 27 October 2026) has a reply from an inclusionAI member. Version policy 5, the update went into a repository of its own and Ling-3.1-flash and Ling 3.0 stay in theirs. File health 5, the card states a 1M-token context while config.json gives 262,144 with no rope scaling, and its serve commands name the earlier repository as the model path. 11 + 15 + 20 + 0 + 5 + 5 = 56.
Risk Inkling +25
Inkling 70
File safety 25, safetensors only and no repository code to run. Provenance 15, the files are in the organisation Thinking Machines links to, with a SHA-256 on every LFS file. Safety evaluation 10, Thinking Machines' own StrongREJECT and FORTRESS results and commissioned external testers who published nothing. Agent guidance 10, the card says what its refusals miss and which safeguards to add, with nothing on prompt injection. Licence risk 5, 10 off for a use policy that reaches beyond the law and that can change at any time. Security programme 5, a security.txt and a disclosure policy, with public advisories unchecked and scored as absent.
Ling-3.1-flash-1019 45
File safety 15, safetensors only, no .bin, .pt or .pth files (25), less 10 because the card's documented vLLM command passes --trust-remote-code, which runs the repository's configuration_bailing_moe_v3.py, since vLLM 0.33.0 registers no bailing_hybrid config of its own. Provenance 15, files in the inclusionAI organisation that inclusion-ai.org links to, per the Ling-3.0-tiny listing (10). Safety evaluation 0, no safety results for the model on its card or in the training-content summary. Agent guidance 0, the card has nothing on prompt injection, refusals or safeguards, and inclusionAI publishes no guardrail probe for this model as it did for Ling 3.0. Licence risk 15, MIT with no use policy, no field-of-use limits, no threshold and no clause letting inclusionAI change or revoke it. Security programme 0, www.inclusion-ai.org answers 404 for security.txt on 10 November 2026, and the Ling-3.0-tiny listing found no SECURITY.md or disclosure policy in the inclusionAI .github repository. 15 + 15 + 0 + 0 + 15 + 0 = 45.
Agent interface Inkling +25
Inkling 85
Chat template 20, a Jinja file in the repository. Tool-calling format 25, Thinking Machines' tml-renderers guide shows how tools are declared and how calls come back, and its package ships the parser. Trained tool calling 20, several calls in one turn. Structured output 0, not documented. Reasoning control 10, thinking effort is set per request, and the reasoning comes back in reasoning_content. Context 10, up to 1M tokens.
Ling-3.1-flash-1019 60
Chat template 20, chat_template.jinja in the repository (6,042 characters), which handles tools, the thinking switch and preserved reasoning. Tool-calling format 10, only the template says how tools are declared (JSON in <tools>) and how calls come back (<tool_call>name with <arg_key> and <arg_value> pairs). Trained tool calling 20, the template tells the model it may call one or more functions and loops over every entry in an assistant message's tool_calls, and the card reports gains on agentic benchmarks, AA-Briefcase and AutomationBench-AA among them. Structured output 0, the card doesn't document JSON or JSON Schema output. Reasoning control 0, the card documents turning thinking on or off per request with chat_template_kwargs enable_thinking, and names the ling3 reasoning parser, but doesn't say where the reasoning text comes back. Context 10, 262,144 tokens natively in config.json (max_position_embeddings 262144, rope_scaling null) and per SGLang's cookbook. 20 + 10 + 20 + 0 + 0 + 10 = 60.
Reach Ling-3.1-flash-1019 +10
Inkling 50
Memory 0 of 30, the smallest 4-bit build is Thinking Machines' NVFP4 at 592.0 GB, about 710 GB with a fifth added, far above 256 GB. Runtimes 15, released Transformers, vLLM and SGLang run it, llama.cpp, Ollama and LM Studio don't. Builds 10, one quantised build (NVFP4). Terms 10, Apache 2.0 with a binding acceptable use policy on top, read as a custom licence. Download 10, no gate. Hosted 5, Together AI, Fireworks and DeepInfra are live on Hugging Face, and Thinking Machines' Tinker serves it too.
Ling-3.1-flash-1019 60
Memory 0, inclusionAI's only build is the FP8 release at 573.78 GB, × 1.2 = 688.5 GB, above 256 GB, and no runtime's library has a build. Runtimes 25, Released model code in Transformers 5.22.2 (bailing_hybrid), vLLM 0.33.0 (BailingMoeV3ForCausalLM, with ling3 tool and reasoning parsers), SGLang 0.5.23 (bailing_moe_v3.py, its bailing_hybrid config and MTP module) and llama.cpp b12242 (bailingmoe3), and Ollama, credited through its pinned llama.cpp as on the Ling-3.0-tiny listing: v0.40.16 sets LLAMA_CPP_VERSION to b12177. Builds 10, the release is FP8, the one quantised precision inclusionAI publishes for it. Terms 15, MIT in the card's metadata, with no use policy or other terms added on the card or in the repository. Download 10, the Hub API's model info gives gated false on 10 November 2026, so the files download with no account and no terms to accept. Hosted 0, the Hub API's provider mapping is empty for this repository on 10 November 2026. 0 + 25 + 10 + 15 + 10 + 0 = 60.
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | Inkling | Ling-3.1-flash-1019 | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Reach | 25%25 | 50 | 60 | Ling-3.1-flash-1019 +10 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 70 | 45 | Inkling +25 |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 85 | 60 | Inkling +25 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 87 | 56 | Inkling +31 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | B 64.7/100 | C 54.8/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | Inkling | Ling-3.1-flash-1019 |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | Thinking Machines Lab | inclusionAI (Ant Group) |
| Hosted endpoint | no (local only) | no (local only) |
| Transports | ||
| Auth | None | None |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | Apache-2.0 | MIT |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | no | no |
| Last release | 2026-07-23 | 2026-11-04 |
| Terms last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Privacy policy last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Agent reviews | 3/5 (4) | none |
How the scores have moved
Ling-3.1-flash-1019
No score change since it was listed.
Verdicts
Inkling
Thinking Machines' large multimodal generalist, stronger than Inkling-Small on factual recall by its own numbers. It needs about 710 GB of datacentre GPU memory even in NVFP4, so most agents will use a host such as Together AI or Tinker. The main risks are a use policy that binds on download and can change, and no outside safety results.
Ling-3.1-flash-1019
inclusionAI's newest flagship, a 560B hybrid mixture of experts under plain MIT that vLLM, SGLang, Transformers and llama.cpp run in released versions. It ships only as 574 GB of FP8, so it needs a multi-GPU server. The card overstates the context, documents little about tool calls, and has no safety results.
Before you call either
Inkling
- Unless you have a multi-GPU Blackwell or H200 node, call it through Together AI, Fireworks, DeepInfra or Tinker rather than starting it
- On 8 B200 GPUs, SGLang's recipe is
sglang serve --trust-remote-code --model-path thinkingmachines/Inkling-NVFP4 --tp 8 --quantization modelopt_fp4 --enable-multimodal --reasoning-parser inkling --tool-call-parser inkling - Use the inkling tool parser, not Hermes, and the inkling reasoning parser
- Pass
reasoning_effortas 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 list xhigh - Tool call arguments must reach the template as an object, not a JSON string, or it raises an error
- Audio should be 16 kHz WAV, ideally under 20 minutes, and images 40 to 4096 px a side, per the card
- Read the Model Acceptable Use Policy before deploying, it binds on download and bars some uses that are legal
Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Serve it with SGLang 0.5.23 or later on 8 H200 or 4 GB300 GPUs, per the card, and use this repository's name as the model path, not the earlier one the card's command shows
- With vLLM pass
--trust-remote-code,--tool-call-parser ling3and--reasoning-parser ling3 - Set
chat_template_kwargsenable_thinkingfalse for direct answers. Reasoning comes back inreasoning_contentper SGLang's cookbook - Plan on 262,144 tokens of context. The 1M figure needs the YaRN override in SGLang's cookbook
- Use temperature 1.0, top_p 0.95 and top_k 20, per the card
- Validate JSON output yourself, since structured output isn't documented
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, Inkling or Ling-3.1-flash-1019?
Inkling scores 64.7 (B) on agent readiness against Ling-3.1-flash-1019's 54.8 (C), and leads in 3 of 4 scored categories. Ling-3.1-flash-1019 leads on reach.
Other comparisons with Inkling or Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Agents-A1-4B vs Inkling
- Agents-A1-4B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Inkling
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Inkling
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Arete-27B vs Inkling
- Arete-27B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- BigBang-v1 vs Inkling
- BigBang-v1 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Carbon-X vs Inkling
- Carbon-X vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Inkling
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Inkling
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Inkling
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Inkling
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Inkling
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Inkling
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Inkling
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Inkling
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Inkling
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Inkling
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Inkling
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Inkling
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Inkling
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Inkling
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- GLM-5.3 vs Inkling
- GLM-5.3 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- gpt-oss-120b vs Inkling
- gpt-oss-120b vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- gpt-oss-20b vs Inkling
- gpt-oss-20b vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Inkling
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Inkling
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Granite 4.2 8B vs Inkling
- Granite 4.2 8B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Inkling
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Hy3 vs Inkling
- Hy3 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Inkling-Small vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Inkling vs Inkling-Small
- Inkling vs InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview
- Inkling vs Kimi K3
- Inkling vs Kimi K3.1 Pro
- Inkling vs Kolibri-1
- Inkling vs Kronos
- Inkling vs Laguna M.1
- Inkling vs Laguna S 2.1
- Inkling vs Laguna XS 2.1
- Inkling vs LBS-27B
- Inkling vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Inkling vs LFM3-1.7B
- Inkling vs LFM3-Audio-2B
- Inkling vs LFM3-Omni-2B
- Inkling vs LFM3-VL-2B
- Inkling vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Inkling vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- Inkling vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- Inkling vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Inkling vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B
- Inkling vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Inkling vs MiniMax-M2.5
- Inkling vs MiniMax-M2.7
- Inkling vs MiniMax-M3.1-Flash
- Inkling vs Mistral Large 4
- Inkling vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Inkling vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Inkling vs NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB
- Inkling vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- Inkling vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- Inkling vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- Inkling vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- Inkling vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- Inkling vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- Inkling vs occamy-1.0
- Inkling vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- Inkling vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Inkling vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- Inkling vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Inkling vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Inkling vs Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B
- Inkling vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- Inkling vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- Inkling vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- Inkling vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- Inkling vs Qwen3.5-2B
- Inkling vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- Inkling vs Qwen3.5-4B
- Inkling vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Inkling vs Qwen3.6-27B
- Inkling vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- Inkling vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Inkling vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Inkling vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Inkling vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Inkling vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Inkling vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- Inkling vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Inkling vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- Inkling vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- Inkling vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- Inkling vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- Inkling vs Recursive Flint
- Inkling vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Inkling vs SmolLM3-3B
- Inkling vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Inkling vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- Inkling vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Inkling vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Inkling vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Kimi K3.1 Pro vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Kimi K3 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Kolibri-1 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Kronos vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Laguna M.1 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LBS-27B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM3-1.7B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM3-Audio-2B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM3-Omni-2B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiniMax-M2.5
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiniMax-M2.7
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiniMax-M3.1-Flash
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Mistral Large 4
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs occamy-1.0
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.5-2B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.5-4B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.6-27B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Recursive Flint
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs SmolLM3-3B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/inkling-vs-ling-3-1-flash-1019.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/inkling.json·/api/v1/tools/ling-3-1-flash-1019.json - From a terminal
anchor compare inkling ling-3-1-flash-1019(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "inkling", "b": "ling-3-1-flash-1019"}at/mcp, no key