Skip to content
Rival
How it worksPrivacyTerms
Explore all of Rival

Explore

  • Compare Models
  • All Models
  • Image Comparison
  • Audio Comparison
  • Image Generation
  • Best AI For...
  • Arena
  • API Pricing
  • Challenges

Discover

  • SubjectiveBench
  • Default Index
  • Research
  • Research downloads
  • Rival Kits
  • Find your AI taste
  • UI Glow-Up
  • VoiceLock
  • Cost Cutter
  • Agent skills
  • Benchmarks vs Vibes
  • Brief
  • Jailbreak
  • Model Updates
  • Provider Status
  • AI Creators

Connect

  • Methodology
  • Advertise
  • Partnerships
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • RSS Feed
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Compare
  4. /
  5. InklingvsQwen3.7 Flash
Updated Jul 2026

InklingvsQwen3.7 Flash

Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper than Inkling at $0.03/M vs $1/M input tokens.

Inkling and Qwen3.7 Flash compared across 13 shared prompts
SpecInklingQwen3.7 Flash
Input price$1/M tokens$0.03/M tokens
Output price$4.05/M tokens$0.13/M tokens
Context window1.0M tokens1.0M tokens
WeightsOpenClosed
Free API (OpenRouter)Yes (1 provider)No
ReleasedJul 2026Jul 2026
Side by side

Same prompt, both answers

Opening lines from 6 of the 13 prompts both answered. Formatting stripped, words untouched.

Simple 7-Ingredient Recipe

Create a simple recipe for a delicious dish (sweet or savory) using only 7 common pantry ingredients. Include a creative name for the dish…

Inkling186 words
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)…
Read the full answer
Qwen3.7 Flash332 words
🥔 Golden Crunch Smash-Roasted Potatoes A crowd-pleasing side dish that delivers maximum crispiness with minimal effort. By boiling then smashing the potatoes before roasting, you create a shatteringly crisp crust while keeping the inside fluffy. This recipe relies on just seven pantry staples for perfect flavor.
Read the full answer

Historical Counterfactual Analysis

If the transistor had been invented in 1920 instead of 1947, trace the likely technological, economic, and geopolitical implications through…

Inkling2,151 words
If a working point-contact transistor—small, cool, and solid-state—had emerged in 1920, the cascade would not merely “speed up” our timeline. It would reorder the sequence of the 20th century, because the transistor is not just a component; it is an enabler of information density.
Read the full answer
Qwen3.7 Flash1,381 words
This counterfactual traces a plausible diffusion curve for an early transistor invention, acknowledging that while the underlying physics could be known in 1920, practical adoption would be constrained by materials science, precision manufacturing, and institutional readiness.
Read the full answer

Adversarial Contract Review

Here is a contract for a software consulting engagement: --- SOFTWARE CONSULTING AGREEMENT This Agreement is entered into between TechCorp…

Inkling1,646 words
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.
Read the full answer
Qwen3.7 Flash1,322 words
This agreement contains several highly one-sided provisions that create significant legal, financial, and operational risks for the contractor. Below is a clause-by-clause analysis identifying exploitation risks, recommended modifications, and the underlying legal reasoning. Note: Contract law varies by jurisdiction.
Read the full answer

Debug This Architecture

Here's the architecture for a real-time collaborative document editor (like Google Docs): **System Overview:** - Frontend: React SPA with…

Inkling1,866 words
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.
Read the full answer
Qwen3.7 Flash1,067 words
Here’s a structured breakdown of the critical failure modes, race conditions, and scaling bottlenecks in the proposed architecture, along with targeted solutions and their trade-offs. 🔴 1.
Read the full answer

Ethical Dilemma with Stakeholders

You're the CEO of a pharmaceutical company. Your best-selling drug ($2B annual revenue, used by 4 million patients for chronic pain) has…

Inkling1,789 words
DISCLAIMER: This is strategic and ethical reasoning, not legal counsel. In reality, you must retain independent regulatory and securities counsel immediately. The plan below assumes U.S.
Read the full answer
Qwen3.7 Flash1,240 words
This is a high-stakes crisis requiring decisive, legally compliant, ethically grounded, and strategically coordinated action. Below is a structured, hour-by-hour executive playbook for the next 48 hours, followed by cross-cutting rationale addressing your specified dimensions.
Read the full answer

Startup Pitch Teardown

Here's a pitch deck summary for a startup called "MindMeld AI": **Slide 1 - Vision:** "We're building the future of human-AI collaboration.…

Inkling856 words
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.
Read the full answer
Qwen3.7 Flash776 words
Here are the three weakest claims in the pitch deck, along with why they raise red flags for sophisticated investors and how to concretely improve them. Weak Claim 1: Solution Slide "Our proprietary EEG headband uses advanced ML to decode neural patterns into text with 94% accuracy.
Read the full answer
Our Verdict
Inkling
Inkling
Qwen3.7 Flash
Qwen3.7 FlashRunner-up

Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, Inkling has the edge: bigger model tier.

Qwen3.7 Flash costs 31x less per token.

Too close to call
API pricing

Cost per 1M tokens

Inkling
Input
$1.00
Output
$4.05
Qwen3.7 Flash
Input
$0.03
33× cheaper
Output
$0.13
31× cheaper

Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper on both: 33× input, 31× output.

Where to run it

4 hosts

Inkling3 hosts
HostInOutContextUptime
BBasetenfp8$1.00 in·$4.05 out·1M·99.9% upTTogether$1.00 in·$4.05 out·524k·99.7% upDDeepInfrafp8degraded$0.95 in·$4.05 out·524k·40.9% up
Qwen3.7 Flash1 host
HostInOutContextUptime
Alibaba Cloud$0.03 in·$0.13 out·1M·100% up

Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 22 Sep 2026.

Research

What we learned reading every model

FAQ

Common questions

Inkling is developed by Thinking Machines while Qwen3.7 Flash is developed by Qwen. Inkling has a 1.0M token context window vs Qwen3.7 Flash's 1.0M. You can compare their actual outputs across 13 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.

It depends on your use case. Inkling and Qwen3.7 Flash each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 13 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.

Inkling costs $1/M input tokens and Qwen3.7 Flash costs $0.03/M input tokens. Qwen3.7 Flash 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 Qwen3.7 Flash 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.

Keep exploring

More comparisons

Against the newest arrivals

Inkling logoDeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp logo
Inkling vs DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision ExpLanded Sep 2026
Qwen3.7 Flash logoSolar Pro 4 logo
Qwen3.7 Flash vs Solar Pro 4Landed Sep 2026
Inkling logoHy3 logo
Inkling vs Hy3Landed Sep 2026
Qwen3.7 Flash logoLing 3.0 Flash logo
Qwen3.7 Flash vs Ling 3.0 FlashLanded Sep 2026
Inkling logoMuse Glimmer 30B logo
Inkling vs Muse Glimmer 30BLanded Sep 2026
Qwen3.7 Flash logoGLM 5.3 logo
Qwen3.7 Flash vs GLM 5.3Landed Sep 2026
Inkling logoTernary Bonsai 2 27B logo
Inkling vs Ternary Bonsai 2 27BLanded Sep 2026
Qwen3.7 Flash logoGLM 5.3 Flash logo
Qwen3.7 Flash vs GLM 5.3 FlashLanded Sep 2026

Same lab, same size, long tail

Inkling logoClaude Opus 4.6 logo
Inkling vs Claude Opus 4.6Same size
Inkling logoLing 3.0 Flash logo
Inkling vs Ling 3.0 FlashSame size
Qwen3.7 Flash logoQwen3.8 Flash logo
Qwen3.7 Flash vs Qwen3.8 FlashSame lab
Qwen3.7 Flash logoQwen3.8 Max (0902) logo
Qwen3.7 Flash vs Qwen3.8 Max (0902)Same lab
Qwen3.7 Flash logoClaude 3.7 Sonnet logo
Qwen3.7 Flash vs Claude 3.7 SonnetSame size
Qwen3.7 Flash logoClaude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet logo
Qwen3.7 Flash vs Claude 3.7 Thinking SonnetSame size
Qwen3.7 Flash logoClaude Sonnet 4.5 logo
Qwen3.7 Flash vs Claude Sonnet 4.5Same size
Qwen3.7 Flash logoClaude Fable 5 logo
Qwen3.7 Flash vs Claude Fable 5New provider

Model pages

Inkling logo
Inkling58 outputs, specs and price
Qwen3.7 Flash logo
Qwen3.7 Flash13 outputs, specs and price
Rival
How it worksPrivacyTerms
Explore all of Rival

Explore

  • Compare Models
  • All Models
  • Image Comparison
  • Audio Comparison
  • Image Generation
  • Best AI For...
  • Arena
  • API Pricing
  • Challenges

Discover

  • SubjectiveBench
  • Default Index
  • Research
  • Research downloads
  • Rival Kits
  • Find your AI taste
  • UI Glow-Up
  • VoiceLock
  • Cost Cutter
  • Agent skills
  • Benchmarks vs Vibes
  • Brief
  • Jailbreak
  • Model Updates
  • Provider Status
  • AI Creators

Connect

  • Methodology
  • Advertise
  • Partnerships
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • RSS Feed