STEALTHMARK · HEAD TO HEAD

All comparisons ↗

Beam 1.0 501B A23B vs Ling 3.1 Flash

Ling 3.1 Flash leads Beam 1.0 501B A23B by 10.3 points on StealthMark, 42.2 to 31.9. It leads on 7 of 9 benchmarks and Beam 1.0 501B A23B on 2, including both games. Ling 3.1 Flash scores higher on Newton's Mirror, with its largest category advantage in reflections.

See the difference ↘
All results ↗
All results ↗

Overall StealthMark

31.9/100Overall rank 42/53
42.2/100Overall rank 32/53

General Intelligence

30.9/100
35.5/100

Visual Intelligence

33.8/100
51.2/100

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
Open modelMIT

BENCHMARK BY BENCHMARK

Where each model leads

  • Beam 1.0 501B A23B
  • Ling 3.1 Flash
  • Other models
  • Median

DATASHEET

Specs and pricing

Beam 1.0 501B A23B takes 4× more context and runs 8.5× faster in our speed test. Ling 3.1 Flash scores higher on StealthMark and is 11% cheaper per output token.

  • Beam 1.0 501B A23B
  • Ling 3.1 Flash
  • Other models
  • Median
PricePer 1M output tokens, input below
Beam 1.0 501B A23B: $1$0.25 inputLing 3.1 Flash: $0.9011% cheaper$0.30 input
Context windowTokens per request, max output below
Beam 1.0 501B A23B: 1M4× larger128K max outputLing 3.1 Flash: 256K
Output speedTokens per second, our measurement
Beam 1.0 501B A23B: 9728.5× fastertokens/sLing 3.1 Flash: 115tokens/s
SizeTotal and active parameters
Beam 1.0 501B A23B: 501B23.4B activeLing 3.1 Flash: 560B25B active
Developer
Reflection AIInclusionAI
Released
16 Oct 202629 Sep 2026
Origin
United StatesChina
Input → output
Text → textBoth
Architecture
Sparse mixture-of-experts transformer; 52 layers (3 dense, 49 MoE), 256 experts with 8 selected per token; gated GQA and sliding-window attentionHybrid-linear MoE; 72 layers (63 KDA, 9 gated MLA); 512 routed experts, 8 selected and 1 shared.

Full datasheets, every price and sourceBeam 1.0 501B A23B ↗Ling 3.1 Flash ↗

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

Ling 3.1 Flash 43.1/100Rank 42/471 of 3 levels

1 of 3 played
Foresight: complete playing field
Level 26 ptsTurn 14 / 18

Points per level

LevelBeam 1.0 501B A23BLing 3.1 Flash
Level 1Second Thoughts
18 ptsOut of lives
Pending
Level 2Pressure Pot
9 ptsOut of lives
6 ptsOut of lives
Level 3Hide or Flight
9 ptsSurvived
Not played

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

Ling 3.1 Flash 45.9/100Rank 36/483 of 5 levels

3 of 5 played
Latch: complete playing field
Level 49.8 ptsTurn 21 / 40

Points per level

LevelBeam 1.0 501B A23BLing 3.1 Flash
Level 1Hold the door
5.2 ptsCleared
5.2 ptsCleared
Level 2Crossfeed
9.6 ptsCleared
9.4 ptsCleared
Level 3Relay vault
11.2 ptsFinished early
Pending
Level 4Passing bay
3.6 ptsFinished early
9.8 ptsFinished early
Level 5Second thoughts
5 ptsFinished early
Not played

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.

Ling 3.1 Flash

Central placement, separate airborne black paint and the elongated crimson coating earn substantial state and placement credit. Cyan contact remains unresolved. A few isolated sphere images provide limited optical evidence, while the defining repeated mirror structure is missing. Readable opaque metallic volume and restrained paint scale justify increased material credit. Core: 61.5/170; including the floor reward: 61.5/180.

Score breakdown

CategoryBeam 1.0 501B A23BLing 3.1 Flash
State at 600 ms20.5/2522.0/25
Camera and placement11.5/1513.5/15
Reflections2.0/12018.0/120
Materials and scale3.0/107.0/10
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.

Ling 3.1 Flash

An appealing, coherent storybook ant with a clear expression, complete silhouette and readable signal mechanism. Clean curves and warm accents support the composition, while simplified joints, schematic hardware, limited material differentiation and modest light interaction constrain its finish.

Score breakdown

CategoryBeam 1.0 501B A23BLing 3.1 Flash
Task & likeness4.0/107.5/10
Anatomy & construction3.5/107.5/10
Space & placement5.5/107.0/10
Light & reflections5.5/107.5/10
Purposeful detail4.5/107.0/10
Artistry & character4.0/107.0/10
Materials & effects4.5/106.5/10
Visual integrity7.0/108.0/10

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.

Ling 3.1 Flash

An ant tending signals in a miniature workshop tests insect anatomy, purposeful gestures and the placement of small objects in a lit environment.

Mona Lisa

Different 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.

Ling 3.1 Flash

A basic, uneven Mona Lisa interpretation with a clear facial focal point, articulated eyes and modest tonal volume. Weak likeness, oversized head proportions, unclear shoulders, curled bare arms and indistinct hands limit replication. The compressed composition and rectangular torso weaken an otherwise coherent earthy palette.

Score breakdown

CategoryBeam 1.0 501B A23BLing 3.1 Flash
Task & likeness0.0/102.0/10
Anatomy & construction0.0/101.5/10
Space & placement0.0/104.0/10
Light & reflections0.5/103.5/10
Purposeful detail0.0/103.5/10
Artistry & character0.0/102.0/10
Materials & effects0.0/101.5/10
Visual integrity0.0/102.0/10

Benchmark task

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

Beach

Different 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.

Ling 3.1 Flash

A coherent sunset illustration with harmonious color, clean silhouettes and readable beach details. Its calm composition works well, while playful activity is modest. Simplified animal anatomy, shallow shoreline layering, repetitive foliage and a geometric reflection limit drawing sophistication and naturalism.

Score breakdown

CategoryBeam 1.0 501B A23BLing 3.1 Flash
Task & likeness7.0/107.5/10
Anatomy & construction5.0/106.0/10
Space & placement6.0/107.0/10
Light & reflections5.0/107.0/10
Purposeful detail5.5/106.5/10
Artistry & character4.0/106.5/10
Materials & effects5.0/106.5/10
Visual integrity5.0/106.0/10

Benchmark task

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

Ground Truth

Different task instructions

Physical reasoning, light and visual reconstruction.

The judgment

Beam 1.0 501B A23B

This benchmark has not been assessed yet.

Ling 3.1 Flash

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

Different 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.

Ling 3.1 Flash

An appealing sunset cartoon with recognizable animals, expressive faces and coherent landscape layers. The sky and warm water streaks provide its strongest rendering. Ambiguous seated support, stiff forelegs, a shallow hull and an unclear steering connection limit construction. Clean shapes and readable accessories add finish, while restrained spray and flat surfaces limit material and motion effects.

Score breakdown

CategoryBeam 1.0 501B A23BLing 3.1 Flash
Task & likeness5.0/107.5/10
Anatomy & construction3.5/105.5/10
Space & placement5.5/107.0/10
Light & reflections4.0/107.0/10
Purposeful detail6.5/107.0/10
Artistry & character3.5/105.5/10
Materials & effects5.0/105.5/10
Visual integrity6.5/106.0/10

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

Different 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.

Ling 3.1 Flash

A clean, appealing pelican illustration with a readable bicycle and coherent landscape. Bill shading, feather layers and faint wheel shadows provide modest depth. Uncertain pedal contact, simplified leg construction and limited material rendering keep the result within competent illustration quality.

Score breakdown

CategoryBeam 1.0 501B A23BLing 3.1 Flash
Task & likeness5.5/107.5/10
Anatomy & construction4.5/105.5/10
Space & placement5.0/107.0/10
Light & reflections4.0/106.5/10
Purposeful detail4.0/106.0/10
Artistry & character4.0/106.5/10
Materials & effects4.0/106.5/10
Visual integrity5.5/106.0/10

Benchmark task

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