# Inkling vs occamy-1.0 (slim)

> Inkling scores 64.2 (B) to occamy-1.0's 61 (C) for open-weight models you run yourself. Prices, MCP, x402, uptime and agent notes side by side.

- Full: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/inkling-vs-occamy-1-0.md (~5,650 tokens) · this version ~430 tokens · JSON https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/inkling-vs-occamy-1-0.json · canonical https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/inkling-vs-occamy-1-0
- Index: https://www.anchorterminal.com/llms.txt · API: https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/index.json · MCP: https://www.anchorterminal.com/mcp · Updated: 2026-10-21
- Licence: CC BY 4.0, credit Anchor Terminal and link this page (https://www.anchorterminal.com/terms/#data)

Inkling scores 64.2 (B) on agent readiness against occamy-1.0's 61 (C), and leads in 3 of 4 scored categories. occamy-1.0 leads on reach. Both do open-weight models you run yourself.

- Inkling: B 64.2, rank #20 of 100 open-weight models · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/inkling.min.md
- occamy-1.0: C 61, rank #51 of 100 open-weight models · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/occamy-1-0.min.md
- Inkling, good 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 55; Agent interface, 85 against 70; Documentation and upkeep, 82 against 74.
- occamy-1.0, good for Agents that want an Apache 2.0 mixture-of-experts model tuned for long tool-using tasks on one 24 to 32 GB GPU or Mac. Ahead on Reach, 85 against 50.

| Category | Inkling | occamy-1.0 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Capability (35%) | pending | pending |
| Reach (25%) | 50 | 85 |
| Risk (20%) | 70 | 55 |
| Agent interface (10%) | 85 | 70 |
| Documentation and upkeep (10%) | 82 | 74 |

| Fact (where they differ) | Inkling | occamy-1.0 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Vendor | Thinking Machines Lab | Accio (Accio-Lab) |
| Last release | 2026-07-23 | 2026-10-02 |