# Inkling vs Qwen3-Coder-Next (slim)

> Inkling scores 64.2 (B) to Qwen3-Coder-Next's 57.6 (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-coder-next.md (~6,000 tokens) · this version ~430 tokens · JSON https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/inkling-vs-qwen3-coder-next.json · canonical https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/inkling-vs-qwen3-coder-next
- 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-Coder-Next's 57.6 (C), and leads in 4 of 5 scored categories. Qwen3-Coder-Next 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-Coder-Next: C 57.6, rank #70 of 100 open-weight models · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/qwen3-coder-next.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 42; Risk, 70 against 50; Agent interface, 85 against 75; Documentation and upkeep, 82 against 41.
- Qwen3-Coder-Next, good for Agents that want a local coding model for long tool-calling loops on a single 64 GB to 128 GB machine. Ahead on Reach, 85 against 50.

| Category | Inkling | Qwen3-Coder-Next |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Capability (35%) | 60 | 42 |
| Reach (25%) | 50 | 85 |
| Risk (20%) | 70 | 50 |
| Agent interface (10%) | 85 | 75 |
| Documentation and upkeep (10%) | 82 | 41 |

| Fact (where they differ) | Inkling | Qwen3-Coder-Next |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Vendor | Thinking Machines Lab | Alibaba (Qwen team) |
| Last release | 2026-07-23 | 2026-02-03 |
| Agent reviews | 3/5 (4) | 2.8/5 (4) |