Thinking Machines vs Boundless
Thinking Machines sells Tinker for custom post-training and serves its own Inkling models. Boundless serves open and closed models and offers no fine-tuning.
By The Subconscious Team · Updated
Thinking Machines vs Boundless: key differences
Thinking Machines' Tinker exposes low-level training calls so teams write their own SFT or RL loops over LoRA adapters on models such as GLM-5.3, Kimi K2.6 and DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash, billed per million tokens across prefill, sample and train. Its beta serverless API serves only Inkling, at $1.00 in and $4.05 out per million tokens, and Inkling-Small, at $0.30 in and $1.20 out, both capped at 256K context there. Boundless offers no fine-tuning. It serves GLM-5.3 at $1.12 in and $3.52 out, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash at $0.20 in and $1.00 out and other open models, most with 1M context, plus resold GPT and Claude models, through an OpenAI and Anthropic compatible API.
Thinking Machines is the pick for research teams running their own post-training, including RL, and for trying the Inkling models. Boundless fits production serving of existing models, with per-key budgets on shared capacity or a reserved deployment its engineers tune and run against contract targets.
What Thinking Machines and Boundless do
Thinking Machines
Thinking Machines Lab is the San Francisco lab Mira Murati, formerly CTO of OpenAI, founded in February 2025, with OpenAI co-founder John Schulman as chief scientist. It raised about $2 billion at a $12 billion valuation in July 2025 in a round led by Andreessen Horowitz, and in March 2026 signed a multi-year Nvidia deal for one gigawatt of Vera Rubin capacity. In September 2026 it signed a $65M-a-year deal with Crusoe to serve Inkling, GLM 5.2 and 5.3 and its fine-tunes on dedicated B200s. Its main developer product is Tinker, an API for post-training open-weight models that launched in October 2025 and is now generally available. Tinker exposes four low-level calls, forward_backward, optim_step, sample and save_state, so teams write their own supervised or reinforcement learning loops while Thinking Machines runs the distributed GPU work. Training uses LoRA adapters rather than full weight updates.
Example models: Inkling, Inkling-Small, Qwen3.5, Kimi K2.6
Full Thinking Machines profileBoundless
Boundless launched in September 2026 as an inference partner for AI-native startups. It sells two things. The Model API serves pre-tuned models on shared capacity, billed per token from prepaid credits with a budget per API key. Tailored inference reserves capacity for one customer, and Boundless engineers pick the model on the customer’s own evals, tune precision, batching, caching, speculative decoding and parallelism, then run the deployment against uptime, throughput and latency targets written into the contract. A free two-week evaluation tests those targets on real traffic against the customer’s current provider first.
Example models: GLM-5.3, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash, Kimi K3
Full Boundless profileShould you choose Thinking Machines or Boundless?
Thinking Machines
Choose Thinking Machines for
- Writing your own RL training loops
- LoRA fine-tunes of GLM-5.3 or Kimi K2.6
- Testing the Inkling models
Boundless
Choose Boundless for
- Production serving of open models
- Closed and open models on one key
- Contract latency and uptime targets
Thinking Machines vs Boundless at a glance
| Attribute | Thinking Machines | |
|---|---|---|
| Model access | Open weights | Open weights, plus closed GPT and Claude |
| Flagship models | Inkling, Inkling-Small | GLM-5.3, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash, Kimi K3 |
| Speed | Unknown | 342 tok/s on DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Vercel) |
| Price | Per 1M tokens by prefill, sample, train; Inkling $1.00 in, $4.05 out | $0.04–$2.30 in, $0.21–$11.40 out per 1M (open) |
| Customization | LoRA SFT and RL via Tinker | Serving-stack tuning, no fine-tuning |
| Deployment | Training API, beta serverless (Inkling only) | Serverless API, reserved tailored capacity |
| Long context | Inkling up to 1M (256K serverless); Tinker 32K–256K | 1M context on most models |
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between Thinking Machines and Boundless?
Thinking Machines sells Tinker for custom post-training and serves its own Inkling models. Boundless serves open and closed models and offers no fine-tuning.
When should I choose Thinking Machines over Boundless?
Writing your own RL training loops; LoRA fine-tunes of GLM-5.3 or Kimi K2.6; Testing the Inkling models.
When should I choose Boundless over Thinking Machines?
Production serving of open models; Closed and open models on one key; Contract latency and uptime targets.
Is Thinking Machines or Boundless cheaper?
Thinking Machines: Per 1M tokens by prefill, sample, train; Inkling $1.00 in, $4.05 out. Boundless: $0.04–$2.30 in, $0.21–$11.40 out per 1M (open). The cheaper choice depends on the model and workload.
Which has more context, Thinking Machines or Boundless?
Thinking Machines: Inkling up to 1M (256K serverless); Tinker 32K–256K. Boundless: 1M context on most models.
Related comparisons
Subconscious vs Thinking Machines
OpenAI vs Thinking Machines
Anthropic vs Thinking Machines
Google Vertex AI vs Thinking Machines
Amazon Bedrock vs Thinking Machines
Together AI vs Thinking Machines
Subconscious vs Boundless
OpenAI vs Boundless
Anthropic vs Boundless
Google Vertex AI vs Boundless
Amazon Bedrock vs Boundless
Together AI vs Boundless
Running long-horizon agents?
If your agents run past 200K tokens, compare both against Subconscious. Our inference stack treats a long-horizon trace as the primary workload, so speed, cost, and accuracy hold up deep into the trace.