GLM-5.1 vs Inkling Small vs Qwen3.8 27B
Inkling Small comes out ahead, 70 to 67 and 57 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
Z.ai (Zhipu)GLM-5.1
57/100- ECI149.9
- Price$1.40 / $4.40
- Context200K
- Our pick
Thinking MachinesInkling Small
70/100- ECI150.2
- Price$0.50 / $1.20
- Context1.05M
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3.8 27B
67/100- ECI149.4
- Price$0.40 / $2.50
- Context262K
Inkling Small is our pick
Inkling Small is the better all-round choice, scoring 70/100 against Qwen3.8 27B (67) and GLM-5.1 (57). It leads on price and context window. Qwen3.8 27B wins on inputs & features. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
- CapabilityInkling SmallCapabilities Index (ECI): Inkling Small 150.2 · GLM-5.1 149.9 · Qwen3.8 27B 149.4
- Lowest priceInkling SmallInkling Small $0.675 · Qwen3.8 27B $0.925 · GLM-5.1 $2.15 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextInkling SmallInkling Small 1,048,576 · Qwen3.8 27B 262,144 · GLM-5.1 200,000 tokens
- Widest inputsInkling Small and Qwen3.8 27BGLM-5.1: Text · Inkling Small: Text, Images, Audio · Qwen3.8 27B: Text, Images, Video
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | GLM-5.1 | Inkling Small | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI) | 50% | 78 | 78 | 77 |
| Price | 25% | 34 | 58 | 51 |
| Inputs & features | 15% | 45 | 70 | 80 |
| Context window | 10% | 32 | 61 | 37 |
| Overall | 100% | 57/100 | 70/100 | 67/100 |
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | GLM-5.1Z.ai (Zhipu) | Inkling SmallThinking Machines | Qwen3.8 27BAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 149.9 | 150.2 (best) | 149.4 |
| ECI rank | #51 of 148 | #47 of 148 (best) | #53 of 148 |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 89.9% (best) | 88.5% | — |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics | 36.8% | 46.3% (best) | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 93.3% (best) | 90.0% | — |
| SWE-bench VerifiedFixing real GitHub issues | 74.2% | — | — |
| SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions | 34.0% (best) | 19.1% | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $1.40 | $0.50 | $0.40 (best) |
| Output | $4.40 | $1.20 (best) | $2.50 |
| Cached input | $0.26 | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $2.15 | $0.675 (best) | $0.925 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Z.AI API | Median of 11 providers | Median of 39 providers |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 200,000 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens (best) | 262,144 tokens |
| Max output | 131,072 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens (best) | 32,768 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | Yes | No |
| Video | No | No | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | No | Yes |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Open | OpenApache-2.0 | Open |
| API model ID | glm-5.1 | — | — |
| API providers | 40 | 11 | 41 (best) |
| Released | Apr 7, 2026 | Jul 30, 2026 | Aug 14, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | — | — |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- GLM-5.1$22.80
- Inkling Small$7.40
- Qwen3.8 27B$9.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: GLM-5.1, Inkling Small or Qwen3.8 27B?
Inkling Small is the better all-round choice, scoring 70/100 against Qwen3.8 27B (67) and GLM-5.1 (57). It leads on price and context window. Qwen3.8 27B wins on inputs & features. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
Which is cheaper, GLM-5.1, Inkling Small or Qwen3.8 27B?
Inkling Small is cheaper at $0.50 input / $1.20 output per million tokens (median across 11 API providers). Qwen3.8 27B costs $0.40 input / $2.50 output per million tokens (median across 39 API providers); GLM-5.1 costs $1.40 input / $4.40 output per million tokens (official Z.AI API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.675 per million tokens for Inkling Small versus $0.925 for Qwen3.8 27B (1.4× as much) and $2.15 for GLM-5.1 (3.2× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
Inkling Small scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Inkling Small 150.2 (#47 of 148), GLM-5.1 149.9 (#51 of 148) and Qwen3.8 27B 149.4 (#53 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (147.5–152.1 vs 148.0–151.6), so treat the gap as small.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Inkling Small and Qwen3.8 27B yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Inkling Small leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Inkling Small has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 262,144 for Qwen3.8 27B and 200,000 for GLM-5.1. Maximum output per response: GLM-5.1 up to 131,072, Inkling Small up to 1,048,576, Qwen3.8 27B up to 32,768 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
GLM-5.1 accepts text; Inkling Small accepts text, images and audio; Qwen3.8 27B accepts text, images and video. Inkling Small handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, all three publish their weights (Apache-2.0), so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
Qwen3.8 27B is the newest, released Aug 14, 2026. Inkling Small came out Jul 30, 2026; GLM-5.1 came out Apr 7, 2026.
How do you decide the winner?
Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Oct 4, 2026.
