Hy Image 3.5 Preview vs Inkling: which should you choose in 2026?
Hy Image 3.5 Preview (by Tencent) and Inkling (by Thinking Machines) are compared below. Here is how they stack up on benchmarks, price, and capabilities, and which one to pick in 2026.
There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader.
Choose Hy Image 3.5 Preview if…
- • you need image generation
Choose Inkling if…
- • you need a model with explicit reasoning support
The benchmark count includes only results measured with a matching benchmark version and protocol. Arena scores are shown separately. Missing, preliminary, and incompatible data is not treated as a controlled win. Published point-score comparisons are labeled separately when protocol details are incomplete. For text-output models, the verdict also compares token pricing and context windows.
Performance benchmarks
Every value links to its source. A dash means that no reviewed result is available for that exact model and protocol.
| Benchmark | Hy Image 3.5 Preview | Inkling |
|---|---|---|
A 657-task benchmark of multi-step work across simulated SaaS applications in six business domains. The Artificial Analysis protocol reports a guardrail-aware score and is distinct from both the public Zapier split and the unrelated dynamic AutoBench framework. Guardrail-aware score | — | — |
A benchmark of difficult, verifiable information-seeking questions designed to measure an agent's ability to locate hard-to-find facts through web browsing. Accuracy | — | — |
A verified computer-use benchmark in which multimodal agents operate desktop applications and are graded from the resulting environment state. Mean task reward | — | — |
A human-validated subset of real GitHub issues used to measure whether a coding agent can produce repository patches that resolve the associated tests. Resolved | — | — |
Version 2.1 of the benchmark for completing realistic tasks in terminal environments. Harness, resource limits, and attempt count are part of the protocol. Mean task success | — | — |
A dynamic LLM evaluation framework in which models generate questions, answer them, and participate in reciprocal peer assessment. AutoBench is distinct from Zapier's AutomationBench. Weighted peer-assessment score | — | — |
The highest-quality subset of Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A, designed to test expert-level scientific reasoning in biology, physics, and chemistry. Accuracy | — | 87.2% Artificial Analysis |
A 2,500-question expert-level benchmark spanning dozens of academic fields. Tool-assisted and no-tools results are separate protocols and must not be merged. Accuracy | — | — |
A contamination-resistant benchmark refreshed on a fixed release cadence. Scores from different LiveBench releases must never be compared as the same protocol. Mean of category averages | — | 71.9% LiveBench |
Benchmark sources
Reviewed evidence last updated 2026-08-09.
Pricing, capabilities, and model facts
| Feature | Hy Image 3.5 Preview | Inkling |
|---|---|---|
| Context & model facts | ||
| Developer | Tencent | Thinking Machines |
| API provider | Tencent | Thinking Machines |
| Input context | 100,000 tokens | 524,288 tokens |
| Maximum output | 90,000 tokens | 262,144 tokens |
| Released | — | — |
| Added to Writingmate | Oct 5, 2026 | Jul 17, 2026 |
| License | Not available | Not available |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | — |
| Capabilities | ||
| Inputs | Text, Image | Text, Image, Audio |
| Outputs | Image | Text |
| Provider endpoint accepts tool parameters | No | Yes |
| Reasoning | No | Yes |
| Vision | Yes | Yes |
| Image Generation | Yes | No |
| Video Generation | No | No |
| API performance | ||
| p95 latency | Not measured | Not measured |
| Output throughput | Not measured | Not measured |
| Writingmate shows API performance only when both models have enough observations from the same measurement window, prompt profile, and provider. Third-party latency values are not copied into this table. | ||
Data sources
- Writingmate model catalog (pricing, limits, and availability)
Catalog data last updated Oct 5, 2026.
Why Pay for Multiple Subscriptions?
Comparing Hy Image 3.5 Preview from Tencent with Inkling from Thinking Machines? Instead of managing separate API keys and subscriptions, get both with Writingmate.
| Plan | Price | Hy Image 3.5 Preview | Inkling | AI Images | AI Video |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Writingmate Pro Most popular | $20/mo | Included | Included | Nano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & more | VEO 3.1, Kling 3.0 |
Writingmate Ultimate Power users | $60/mo | Included | Included | Nano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & more | VEO 3.1, Kling 3.0 |
Hy Image 3.5 Preview vs Inkling FAQ
Which is better, Hy Image 3.5 Preview or Inkling?
There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader.
Which model is cheaper to use through an API?
A comparable blended token price is not available for both models. Check the API pricing rows for the values that are currently published.
Which model supports more context?
Comparable context-window data is not available for both models.
Can I switch between Hy Image 3.5 Preview and Inkling?
Yes. Use the model selector on this page to open any current Writingmate model comparison. You can also run the same prompt with both models in Writingmate.
Related comparisons
More Hy Image 3.5 Preview comparisons
Seedream 5.0 Flash
ByteDance
Seedream 5.0 Flash is an image generation and editing model from ByteDance Seed.
FLUX.3 Image
Black Forest Labs
FLUX.3 Image is Black Forest Labs' flagship image generation and editing model.
Ming Image 0.1 Design Layer
inclusionAI
Ming Image 0.1 Design Layer is a model by inclusionAI.
MAI-Image-2.6
Microsoft
MAI-Image-2.6 is an image generation and editing model from Microsoft AI, the precision tier of the MAI-Image-2.6 family alongside the faster MAI-Image-2.6 Flash.
MAI-Image-2.6 Flash
Microsoft
MAI-Image-2.6 Flash is a model by Microsoft.
Muse Image
Meta
Muse Image is an agentic image generation model from Meta that generates and edits images from text and reference images.
More Inkling comparisons
Jev Router
Typesafe
Jev Router picks the best model and reasoning effort for each request, balancing quality, speed, and cost.
Perceptron Mk1.5
Perceptron
Perceptron Mk1.5 is Perceptron's embodied reasoning model for physical agents.
MiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeed
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeed is the fast speed edition of Xiaomi's flagship foundation model, MiMo-V2.6-Pro.
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is an open-source foundation model developed by Xiaomi.
MiMo-V2.6-Pro
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.6-Pro is the flagship foundation model developed by Xiaomi.
Qwen3.8 Omni Flash
Qwen
Qwen3.8 Omni Flash is an omni-modal reasoning model from Alibaba, the first Qwen model built around agentic capabilities with native audio-video understanding.