# Inkling vs Qwen3.5-4B (slim)

> Inkling scores 64.2 (B) to Qwen3.5-4B's 61.2 (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-qwen3-5-4b.md (~5,700 tokens) · this version ~430 tokens · JSON https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/inkling-vs-qwen3-5-4b.json · canonical https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/inkling-vs-qwen3-5-4b
- 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 Qwen3.5-4B's 61.2 (C), and leads in 4 of 5 scored categories. Qwen3.5-4B 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
- Qwen3.5-4B: C 61.2, rank #33 of 100 open-weight models · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/qwen3-5-4b.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 Capability, 60 against 53; Risk, 70 against 55; Agent interface, 85 against 70; Documentation and upkeep, 82 against 34.
- Qwen3.5-4B, good for Agents that want a cheap local helper for tool calls, short reasoning and reading images on a laptop or small GPU Ahead on Reach, 85 against 50.

| Category | Inkling | Qwen3.5-4B |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Capability (35%) | 60 | 53 |
| Reach (25%) | 50 | 85 |
| Risk (20%) | 70 | 55 |
| Agent interface (10%) | 85 | 70 |
| Documentation and upkeep (10%) | 82 | 34 |

| Fact (where they differ) | Inkling | Qwen3.5-4B |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Vendor | Thinking Machines Lab | Alibaba (Qwen team) |
| Last release | 2026-07-23 | 2026-03-02 |