STEALTHMARK · HEAD TO HEAD

All comparisons ↗

Beam 1.0 501B A23B vs Iceman Contributor

Beam 1.0 501B A23B leads Iceman Contributor by 12.7 points on StealthMark, 31.9 to 19.2. It leads on 8 of 9 benchmarks, including both games, and Iceman Contributor on 1. Beam 1.0 501B A23B scores higher on Newton's Mirror, with its largest category advantage in state at 600 ms.

See the difference ↘
All results ↗
Model guide ↗

Overall StealthMark

31.9/100Overall rank 42/53
19.2/100Overall rank 47/53

General Intelligence

30.9/100
11.7/100

Visual Intelligence

33.8/100
31.0/100

Reasoning efficiency

On every task, result quality and reasoning tokens are each compared with all measured models and weighed equally. Each dot is one model.

Single-step reasoning Result quality weighed against reasoning tokens on a single problem

Multi-step reasoning Result quality weighed against reasoning tokens across connected steps, as in agentic workflows

Open or local

Open modelApache 2.0

BENCHMARK BY BENCHMARK

Where each model leads

  • Beam 1.0 501B A23B
  • Iceman Contributor
  • Other models
  • Median

DATASHEET

Specs and pricing

Beam 1.0 501B A23B scores higher on StealthMark and runs 21× faster in our speed test.

  • Beam 1.0 501B A23B
  • Iceman Contributor
  • Other models
  • Median
PricePer 1M output tokens, input below
Beam 1.0 501B A23B: $1$0.25 inputIceman Contributor: No list price
Context windowTokens per request, max output below
Beam 1.0 501B A23B: 1M128K max outputIceman Contributor: Not published
Output speedTokens per second, our measurement
Beam 1.0 501B A23B: 97221× fastertokens/sIceman Contributor: 46tokens/s
SizeTotal and active parameters
Beam 1.0 501B A23B: 501B23.4B activeIceman Contributor: Not disclosed
Developer
Reflection AINot published
Released
16 Oct 2026Not published
Origin
United StatesNot published
Input → output
Text → textNot published
Architecture
Sparse mixture-of-experts transformer; 52 layers (3 dense, 49 MoE), 256 experts with 8 selected per token; gated GQA and sliding-window attentionNot published

Full datasheets, every price and sourceBeam 1.0 501B A23B ↗

Anticipating threats and planning ahead. Collect coins while avoiding ghosts. Ghosts move before the player each turn, and collisions cost a life. 3 levels in sequence, up to 66 turns in total. Earlier moves and outcomes carry forward, testing learning across levels.

Beam 1.0 501B A23B 49.4/100Rank 18/47

Survived 1 of 3
Foresight: complete playing field
Level 39 ptsTurn 20 / 20

Iceman Contributor 3.2/100Rank 47/47

Survived 0 of 3
Foresight: complete playing field
Level 31 ptsTurn 7 / 20

Points per level

LevelBeam 1.0 501B A23BIceman Contributor
Level 1Second Thoughts
18 ptsOut of lives
0 ptsOut of lives
Level 2Pressure Pot
9 ptsOut of lives
3 ptsOut of lives
Level 3Hide or Flight
9 ptsSurvived
1 ptsOut of lives

Cooperative planning and learning from experience. Coordinate two robots to push numbered cores onto matching sockets. Pressure plates hold doors open; moving either robot uses one turn. 5 levels in sequence, up to 152 turns in total. Earlier moves and outcomes carry forward, testing learning across levels.

Beam 1.0 501B A23B 37.3/100Rank 29/48

Cleared 2 of 5
Latch: complete playing field
Level 55 ptsTurn 30 / 40

Iceman Contributor 3.6/100Rank 44/48

Cleared 1 of 5
Latch: complete playing field
Level 55 ptsTurn 25 / 40

Points per level

LevelBeam 1.0 501B A23BIceman Contributor
Level 1Hold the door
5.2 ptsCleared
5.2 ptsCleared
Level 2Crossfeed
9.6 ptsCleared
2.8 ptsFinished early
Level 3Relay vault
11.2 ptsFinished early
2.2 ptsFinished early
Level 4Passing bay
3.6 ptsFinished early
4 ptsFinished early
Level 5Second thoughts
5 ptsFinished early
5 ptsFinished early

Newton's Mirror

Same task instructions

Physics, perspective and recursive reflections, tested together. Explore the test ↗

The judgment

Beam 1.0 501B A23B

Central object placement is fairly close, but the defining mirrored-room structure is missing. The paint colors suggest the required contact order without establishing their different interaction histories. The faint floor oval does not demonstrate valid reflection geometry, so it earns no reflection credit. Rounded volume and glossy paint provide limited material credit despite weak metallic finishes and oversized paint bodies.

Iceman Contributor

The image provides limited evidence through rounded volume, faint wall strips and floor echoes. Its main sphere is small and low, the paint beads do not establish the required interaction history, and most of the defining mirror structure is missing.

Score breakdown

CategoryBeam 1.0 501B A23BIceman Contributor
State at 600 ms20.5/250.5/25
Camera and placement11.5/152.5/15
Reflections2.0/1207.5/120
Materials and scale3.0/103.0/10
Floor-damage reward0.0/100.0/10

Benchmark task

A spinning metal sphere and paint in a mirrored room test physical reasoning, perspective and consistency across repeated reflections.

Selfie

Different task instructions

Visual construction and creative interpretation.

The judgment

Beam 1.0 501B A23B

An appealing expression and warm palette support a coherent simple cartoon. The central polishing joke is not legible: the cloth is unresolved and the nose sits away from the fan. Pointed radial plates, uncertain limb attachments and weak ground contact limit construction, while restrained surface detail limits material richness.

Iceman Contributor

The crystal crown, cyan eyes and blue faceting communicate an icy fantasy character. Anatomical readability is substantially weaker: the ringed torso, crowded facial construction and fingerless appendages do not resolve the requested childlike crouch or pouncing gesture. Sparse surface detail and shallow shading further limit the result.

Score breakdown

CategoryBeam 1.0 501B A23BIceman Contributor
Task & likeness4.0/104.0/10
Anatomy & construction3.5/103.0/10
Space & placement5.5/104.0/10
Light & reflections5.5/104.5/10
Purposeful detail4.5/104.0/10
Artistry & character4.0/104.5/10
Materials & effects4.5/104.5/10
Visual integrity7.0/104.0/10

Benchmark task

Beam 1.0 501B A23B

A golden pangolin polishes its oversized amber tail while its nose smudges the same scale. The scene tests expressive anatomy, physical contact and contrasting translucent, polished and soft materials.

Iceman Contributor

Character scenes test expression, anatomy, materials and coherent visual construction.

Mona Lisa

Same task instructions

Precise visual recall and portrait reconstruction.

The judgment

Beam 1.0 501B A23B

The candidate shows a faint warm oval against an almost entirely black field. Minimal placement and smooth tonal variation are visible, but the portrait, anatomy, crossed hands and landscape remain unreadable. The saved comparisons provide no specific evidence supporting a change to the baseline categories.

Iceman Contributor

The portrait retains a dark silhouette against an earthy landscape, but replication is weak. The frontal body, elongated facial proportions and undifferentiated hands lose the reference's defining pose and likeness. Basic gradients and layered hills provide some coherence, with little anatomical or painterly detail.

Score breakdown

CategoryBeam 1.0 501B A23BIceman Contributor
Task & likeness0.0/101.5/10
Anatomy & construction0.0/101.5/10
Space & placement0.0/102.5/10
Light & reflections0.5/102.0/10
Purposeful detail0.0/102.0/10
Artistry & character0.0/102.0/10
Materials & effects0.0/102.0/10
Visual integrity0.0/103.0/10

Benchmark task

An SVG interpretation of the Mona Lisa tests facial likeness, anatomy and the composition of a familiar portrait.

Beach

Same task instructions

Creativity, perspective and visual beauty.

The judgment

Beam 1.0 501B A23B

A coherent, cheerful beach illustration fulfills the main subjects with clean shapes and a strong sunset focal point. Its basic geometric construction, ambiguous animal anatomy, shallow depth and schematic lighting limit its accomplishment. Decorative details provide interest without developing intricate forms or convincing physical surfaces.

Iceman Contributor

A coherent sunset beach with recognizable animals, playful details and effective palm framing. Connected silhouettes and layered scenery support modest construction and placement credit. Jointless figures, limited foreshortening and an inadequately separated sun and reflection keep the execution basic despite its attractive color.

Score breakdown

CategoryBeam 1.0 501B A23BIceman Contributor
Task & likeness7.0/107.0/10
Anatomy & construction5.0/103.5/10
Space & placement6.0/106.0/10
Light & reflections5.0/104.0/10
Purposeful detail5.5/105.5/10
Artistry & character4.0/103.5/10
Materials & effects5.0/104.5/10
Visual integrity5.0/105.0/10

Benchmark task

A busy shoreline at sunset tests scene composition, animal forms and the relationship between light and water reflections.

Ground Truth

Same task instructions

Physical reasoning, light and visual reconstruction.

The judgment

Beam 1.0 501B A23B

This benchmark has not been assessed yet.

Iceman Contributor

This benchmark has not been assessed yet.

Benchmark task

A plank, computer mouse and blueberry in a steel room test physical stability, spatial relationships, materials and lighting.

Raccoon

Same task instructions

Scene composition and interacting subjects.

The judgment

Beam 1.0 501B A23B

A cheerful, readable illustration with recognizable animals, expressive faces and useful accessories. Simple rounded construction limits complexity, while ambiguous steering attachments and weak hull-to-water contact reduce physical coherence. Lighting and surface effects establish the setting without convincing environmental interaction.

Iceman Contributor

The sunset palette and red hull establish an appealing setting, but the central interaction remains unresolved. Overlapping bodies obscure the dog, supported seating is unclear, and no readable paw-to-control grip demonstrates steering. Simple construction, weak environmental lighting and loosely described spray limit depth and finish.

Score breakdown

CategoryBeam 1.0 501B A23BIceman Contributor
Task & likeness5.0/102.0/10
Anatomy & construction3.5/103.0/10
Space & placement5.5/103.0/10
Light & reflections4.0/104.0/10
Purposeful detail6.5/103.5/10
Artistry & character3.5/102.5/10
Materials & effects5.0/104.0/10
Visual integrity6.5/102.5/10

Benchmark task

A jet-ski scene pairs a canine driver with a raccoon passenger. It tests the placement and contact of interacting subjects, along with vehicle construction.

Pelican

Same task instructions

Subject construction and spatial relationships.

The judgment

Beam 1.0 501B A23B

A cheerful, clearly readable pelican-and-bicycle illustration with clean contours and balanced composition. Simple geometric construction limits artistic complexity, while ambiguous neck and steering overlaps, merged pedal contacts and an incomplete drivetrain weaken physical coherence.

Iceman Contributor

A recognizable pelican and bicycle sit within an appealing sunset composition. Feather contours, bill shape and atmospheric colour provide character, but disconnected-looking leg origins, unclear pedal contact and unresolved steering weaken the central riding action. Consistent wheel alignment establishes a side view without resolving the rider's support.

Score breakdown

CategoryBeam 1.0 501B A23BIceman Contributor
Task & likeness5.5/104.0/10
Anatomy & construction4.5/103.5/10
Space & placement5.0/103.5/10
Light & reflections4.0/105.0/10
Purposeful detail4.0/104.5/10
Artistry & character4.0/103.5/10
Materials & effects4.0/104.0/10
Visual integrity5.5/103.0/10

Benchmark task

A cycling pelican tests anatomy, riding posture and contact between the bird and the bicycle.