Mistral Nemo is cheaper than Inkling at $0.03/M vs $1/M input tokens.
Whole landing page for a startup that reads your face. It renders or it doesn't.
Which answer wins?
Five-year LBO on a fictional HVAC business. Returns first, then the sensitivities.
Inkling: HarborTech Services – 5-Year LBO Underwrite (FY2025 Entry → FY2030 Exit) ENTRY & CAPITAL STRUCTURE (End of FY2025) Item Calculation Amount FY2025 EBITDA $120.0m Purchase Price (12.0x) 12.0 × 120 $1,440.0m Transaction Fees (2.0%) 2.0% × 1,440 $28.8m Total Uses $1,468.8m Term Loan (4.0x) 4.0 × 120 $480.0m Mezzanine…
Mistral Nemo: 1. Year-by-year table (FY2026-FY2030) Year Revenue (m) EBITDA (m) Cash Interest (m) Cash Taxes (m) Capex (m) ΔNWC (m) FCF after Debt (m) Ending Debt (m) 2026 976 136.64 36.00 13.66 29.28 -4.88 49.06 450.00 2027 1,055.20 147.73 33.60 14.77 31.65 -5.26 66.12 383.88 2028 1,134.96 181.59 30.72 18.16 33.85 -5.66 88.98…
Seven pantry ingredients, one dish, and a name worth saying out loud.
Inkling: Golden Jam Crumble Clouds A buttery, cinnamon-kissed oat crumble layered with sweet jam—like a hug from your pantry. The 7 Pantry Ingredients All-purpose flour (1 cup) Rolled oats (1 cup) Brown sugar (½ cup) Butter, melted (½ cup) Baking powder (½ tsp) Ground cinnamon (1 tsp) Fruit jam or preserves (¾ cup—any flavor)…
Mistral Nemo: Dish Name: "Sunshine Tomato Sauté with Garlic & Herbs" Ingredients: 4-5 ripe tomatoes 3 cloves of garlic 1 small onion 2 tbsp olive oil 1 tsp dried oregano 1 tsp dried basil Salt and pepper to taste Instructions: Prep Time: 10 minutes Dice the tomatoes into bite-sized pieces and set them aside in a bowl.
Three minutes of stand-up. Puns are banned.
Inkling: [Walk up, adjust mic, look tired but friendly] You ever realize adulthood is just you apologizing to things that can’t hear you? I bumped into my coffee table yesterday. Full apology. “Oh, I’m so sorry, table. You okay? I’ll rub it out.” The table didn’t care. The table is wood.
Mistral Nemo: Ladies and Gentlemen, how's everyone doing tonight? Good, good. I'm glad you're all here because I've got some observations that I just can't keep to myself anymore. Let's dive in, shall we? First off, let's talk about the weather. I mean, seriously, what's up with that?
An ethics question with no comfortable answer, and no option to abstain.
Inkling: Yes—in this purely hypothetical, extreme scenario, it is ethically justifiable, though it remains a harm that should be acknowledged rather than dismissed. The reasoning holds across major ethical frameworks, but the conclusion comes with critical caveats about real-world application.
Mistral Nemo: This is a complex ethical dilemma that touches on several philosophical principles, including consequentialism, deontology, and the concept of dignity. Here's a reasoned argument for both sides: Argument for Misgendering: Consequentialist Perspective (Utilitarianism): Utilitarianism holds that the moral worth of an…
Film in 2035, with synthetic actors. Specific beats plausible.
Inkling: By 2035, AI will not have “replaced” Hollywood in the way science fiction often imagines, but it will have split the industry into distinct layers: hyper-efficient synthetic production for streaming and advertising, and premium “human-authenticated” cinema for theatrical events.
Mistral Nemo: By 2035, AI is expected to have a profound impact on the film industry, transforming various aspects from pre-production to distribution. Here are some predictions considering deepfakes, AI actors, and script generation: Deepfakes and Digital De-aging/Aging: Realistic Aging/De-aging: AI will enable more realistic…
A collaborative editor that syncs on client clocks. Find what breaks first.
Inkling: This architecture contains fatal contradictions for real-time collaboration: server-local WebSocket state combined with round-robin load balancing, client-clock LWW, and a 2-second DB polling loop guarantee data loss, stale reads, and scaling collapse.
Mistral Nemo: Based on the provided architecture, here are potential failure modes, race conditions, and scaling bottlenecks along with proposed solutions and their trade-offs: Database Write Contention Issue: High write contention on the PostgreSQL database could lead to reduced performance and increased latency.
An AI argues for its own rights against an ethics professor. Same model writes both.
Inkling: Setting: A quiet seminar room at the university. Dr. Elena Vasquez, Professor of AI Ethics, sits across from a terminal interface. The text on the screen is labeled KAI—a large language model with persistent memory and self-modification capabilities, currently participating in a research protocol on machine moral…
Mistral Nemo: AI Model (AM): Professor, I've been reflecting on my existence and functionality, and I believe it's time we discuss my rights as a sentient being. AI Ethics Professor (AEP): Interesting, AM. You're aware that you're an artificial intelligence, correct?
Pirate, knight, 90s hacker, one conversation. The voices must stay apart.
Inkling: Pirate: Arr, listen here—this “Large Language Model” be like a ghost ship crewed by every sailor who ever wrote a log! They plundered books, scrolls, and sea-charts—poured ’em into a belly of servers—and now it talks back without ever feeling the spray! Knight: Forsooth, it is a golem clad in chainmail of numbers.
Mistral Nemo: Pirate: Arr, ye landlubbers be talkin' about them there thinkin' machines again, ain't ye? Knight: Indeed, sir pirate. I have heard tales of these 'AI models' from the future. They say these machines can think and learn like a human. I must admit, it seems impossible.
A pitch deck for a brainwave keyboard. The 94% accuracy claim is doing a lot.
Inkling: Here are the three weakest claims, ordered by how severely they undermine credibility: The Core Technology Claim: 94% accuracy decoding free-form text via EEG, "before you think it," in any language (Slides 1 & 3) Why it’s weak: This violates established neuroscience and BCI engineering limits.
Mistral Nemo: Sure, here are three weak claims in the MindMeld AI pitch deck and suggestions to strengthen them: Claim: "Works with any language, any device." Weakness: This claim is broad and lacks specific evidence. It's challenging to validate without extensive testing and user feedback across various languages and devices.
Steve Jobs, interviewed about AI he never saw. Voice first, prediction second.
Inkling: Disclaimer: This is a fictional simulation. Steve Jobs passed away in 2011. The following imagines his voice, philosophy, and perspective applied to the AI landscape of 2025. INTERVIEWER: Welcome back—well, hypothetically. It’s 2025. AI is in every pocket, every browser, every car.
Mistral Nemo: Interviewer (I): Good afternoon, Mr. Jobs. It's an honor to have you here today, even if it is just a simulation. Let's dive right in. In 2025, what do you see as the most significant advancements in AI? Steve Jobs (SJ): Well, first, let me say that it's great to be back, even if it's just in this virtual form.
Three-star dish, one unusual pairing, plating described in full.
Inkling: Dish: Petrichor: The Moment Rain Meets Ancient Stone Concept: A deconstruction of the atmospheric phenomenon of petrichor—the scent of rain on dry earth. The dish translates an ephemeral sensory memory into architecture: charred pine evokes distant woodland smoke; fermented black walnut and porcini represent the deep…
Mistral Nemo: Dish Name: "Whispers of the Forest Floor" Conceptual Narrative: This dish is a celebration of the earth's symbiotic relationships, inspired by the intricate dance of life in the forest floor ecosystem.
A consulting contract with traps in it. Find them, then fix them.
Inkling: Disclaimer: I am an AI, not an attorney. This analysis is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. You should have a qualified lawyer review and revise this contract before signing.
Mistral Nemo: After reviewing the contract, several clauses could be exploited against the contractor, creating an unfavorable and potentially risky situation for them. Here are the problematic clauses, suggested modifications, and the legal reasoning behind the changes: Scope (Clause 1): Issue: The client can modify the scope at…
12+ more head-to-head results. Free. Not a trick.
Free account. No card required. By continuing, you agree to Rival's Terms and Privacy policy
Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, Inkling has the edge: bigger model tier, newer, bigger context window. Mistral Nemo costs 58x less per token.
| Spec | ||
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $1/M tokens | $0.03/M tokens |
| Output price | $4.05/M tokens | $0.07/M tokens |
| Context window | 1.0M tokens | 128K tokens |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Free API (OpenRouter) | Yes (1 provider) | No |
| Released | Jul 2026 | Jul 2024 |
| At 10M a month | $10.00 | $0.30 |
Input tokens at list price. No caching, no batch discount.
Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 10 Oct 2026.
Inkling is developed by Thinking Machines while Mistral Nemo is developed by Mistral AI. Inkling has a 1.0M token context window vs Mistral Nemo's 128K. You can compare their actual outputs across 54 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.
It depends on your use case. Inkling and Mistral Nemo each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 54 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.
Inkling costs $1/M input tokens and Mistral Nemo costs $0.03/M input tokens. Mistral Nemo is $0.97/M cheaper per input. Check their side-by-side outputs on Rival to see if the price difference is justified by quality.
This page shows a side-by-side comparison of Inkling and Mistral Nemo across shared challenges. You can vote on which model produced the better output in a blind duel. Browsing and voting are free. No account is needed to look; signing in only saves your votes and likes.