Inkling vs Nanbeige4.3-33B

Thinking Machines Lab · US  |  Nanbeige LLM Lab (BOSS Zhipin) · China · Updated June 2026

Quick verdict

Pick Inkling for the first model release from mira murati's thinking machines lab (ex-openai cto) - one of the most closely-watched new labs in ai or a 975b-parameter moe (41b active) with native text, image, and audio reasoning in one model. Pick Nanbeige4.3-33B for 33b dense open-weight model under apache 2.0 with a 524,288-token context or artificial analysis intelligence index of 20, first of the 8 models in its comparison class.

Inkling (Thinking Machines Lab, US) and Nanbeige4.3-33B (Nanbeige LLM Lab (BOSS Zhipin), China) line up two different AI ecosystems against each other — a comparison that is as much about cost philosophy and openness as raw capability. Inkling is mira Murati's Thinking Machines Lab debuts with Inkling - a 975B open-weight MoE with native multimodal reasoning and a dialable thinking-effort control. Nanbeige4.3-33B is nanbeige LLM Lab's October 25, 2026 Apache 2.0 open model - 33B parameters and 512K context, aimed at agentic coding on modest hardware. Their biggest split is context window, and the breakdown below shows exactly how that plays out for your workload.

Key differences at a glance

Side-by-side specs

SpecInklingNanbeige4.3-33B
ProviderThinking Machines Lab (US) Nanbeige LLM Lab (BOSS Zhipin) (China)
ReleasedJuly 15, 2026 October 25, 2026
Context window1M (~1,500 pages) 512K tokens (~786 pages)
Price (in/out)Open weight (self-host / free) Open weight (self-host / free)
Open weight?Yes — self-hostable Yes — self-hostable
Modalitiestext, image, audio, code text, code
SWE-Bench VerifiedNot published Not published
MRCR v2 @ 1MNot published Not published

Who wins what

The first model release from Mira Murati's Thinking Machines Lab (ex-OpenAI CTO) - one of the most closely-watched new labs in AI

Inkling

Nanbeige4.3-33B is comparatively weak here — coding benchmarks are self-reported, with non-standard settings noted on the model card and no independent reproduction

A 975B-parameter MoE (41B active) with native text, image, and audio reasoning in one model

Inkling

Mira Murati's Thinking Machines Lab debuts with Inkling - a 975B open-weight MoE with native multimodal reasoning and a dialable thinking-effort control — and it carries the larger 1M context.

A dialable 'thinking effort' knob (0.2-0.99) that lets you trade speed for depth of reasoning per-request

Inkling

Inkling lists a dialable 'thinking effort' knob (0.2-0.99) that lets you trade speed for depth of reasoning per-request among its strengths; Nanbeige4.3-33B does not.

33B dense open-weight model under Apache 2.0 with a 524,288-token context

Nanbeige4.3-33B

Nanbeige LLM Lab's October 25, 2026 Apache 2.0 open model - 33B parameters and 512K context, aimed at agentic coding on modest hardware — and it is the newer of the two.

Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index of 20, first of the 8 models in its comparison class

Nanbeige4.3-33B

Inkling is comparatively weak here — a brand-new lab's first release - no multi-generation track record yet

Lab-reported Terminal-Bench 2.1 of 80.9 and DeepSWE of 65.5

Nanbeige4.3-33B

Inkling is comparatively weak here — independent third-party benchmark verification is still limited given how recently it shipped

Largest single-prompt input

Inkling

Its 1M window is about 1.9× larger than Nanbeige4.3-33B's 512K tokens, fitting roughly 1,500 pages in one prompt.

Which should you pick?

Someone analysing very long documents or codebases

→ Inkling

Larger 1M window fits more in one prompt.

Anyone whose priority is the first model release from mira murati's thinking machines lab (ex-openai cto) - one of the most closely-watched new labs in ai

→ Inkling

It is specifically built for that.

Anyone whose priority is 33b dense open-weight model under apache 2.0 with a 524,288-token context

→ Nanbeige4.3-33B

That is its strongest area.

An enterprise with regional data-residency rules

→ Inkling or Nanbeige4.3-33B

Origin (US vs China) affects where data is processed and which compliance regime applies — check the provider's terms for your region.

Inkling: where it fits

Mira Murati's Thinking Machines Lab debuts with Inkling - a 975B open-weight MoE with native multimodal reasoning and a dialable thinking-effort control. Released July 15, 2026 by Thinking Machines Lab, it is built for the first model release from Mira Murati's Thinking Machines Lab (ex-OpenAI CTO) - one of the most closely-watched new labs in AI, a 975B-parameter MoE (41B active) with native text, image, and audio reasoning in one model, a dialable 'thinking effort' knob (0.2-0.99) that lets you trade speed for depth of reasoning per-request, and fully open weights (Apache 2.0) at frontier scale - unusual for a model this large and this new.

Its trade-offs are real: a brand-new lab's first release - no multi-generation track record yet, no official hosted API price - available via third-party hosts only at launch, and independent third-party benchmark verification is still limited given how recently it shipped. As an open-weight model, its running cost is your own hardware rather than a per-token fee.

Nanbeige4.3-33B: where it fits

Nanbeige LLM Lab's October 25, 2026 Apache 2.0 open model - 33B parameters and 512K context, aimed at agentic coding on modest hardware. Released October 25, 2026 by Nanbeige LLM Lab (BOSS Zhipin), it is built for 33B dense open-weight model under Apache 2.0 with a 524,288-token context, artificial Analysis Intelligence Index of 20, first of the 8 models in its comparison class, and lab-reported Terminal-Bench 2.1 of 80.9 and DeepSWE of 65.5.

Its trade-offs: coding benchmarks are self-reported, with non-standard settings noted on the model card and no independent reproduction, no public first-party API or per-token price; Artificial Analysis lists no publicly available API, and text-only input. As an open-weight model, its running cost is your own hardware rather than a per-token fee.

The bottom line for this matchup

This is less "which is smarter" and more "which ecosystem fits." Inkling (US) and Nanbeige4.3-33B (China) differ on pricing philosophy, data-residency, and tooling as much as on raw scores. The pragmatic move is to run one real task through both and judge the outputs against your own constraints — including where your data is allowed to be processed.

Want both Inkling and Nanbeige4.3-33B without two subscriptions? LumiChats gives you these plus 40+ models under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day) — draft with one, cross-check with the other.

See pricing

Frequently asked questions

Is Inkling or Nanbeige4.3-33B better for coding?

Public SWE-Bench figures are not available for either model, so the honest test is your own repository — run an identical real bug through both. By design, Inkling leans toward the first model release from mira murati's thinking machines lab (ex-openai cto) - one of the most closely-watched new labs in ai while Nanbeige4.3-33B leans toward 33b dense open-weight model under apache 2.0 with a 524,288-token context, and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.

Which is cheaper, Inkling or Nanbeige4.3-33B?

They are priced almost identically, so cost will not decide between them.

Which has the bigger context window?

Inkling — 1M vs 512K tokens, about 1.9× larger. Useful only if the model actually reasons over the full window, which not all do.

Can I use both Inkling and Nanbeige4.3-33B together?

Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you Inkling, Nanbeige4.3-33B and 40+ others under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day), so you can draft with one and cross-check with the other instead of buying two subscriptions.

Which is newer, Inkling or Nanbeige4.3-33B?

Nanbeige4.3-33B — released October 25, 2026, about 3 months after Inkling.

Related comparisons

Specifications and benchmarks reflect publicly reported figures as of June 2026 and may change as providers release updates. Always verify on your own workload.