STEALTHMARK · HEAD TO HEAD

All comparisons ↗

Beam 1.0 501B A23B vs MiniMax M3

MiniMax M3 leads Beam 1.0 501B A23B by 2.7 points on StealthMark, 34.6 to 31.9. It leads on 7 of 9 benchmarks and Beam 1.0 501B A23B on 2, including both games. MiniMax M3 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
34.6/100Overall rank 39/53

General Intelligence

30.9/100
28.0/100

Visual Intelligence

33.8/100
45.3/100

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

  • MiniMax M3

Open or local

Open modelApache 2.0

BENCHMARK BY BENCHMARK

Where each model leads

  • Beam 1.0 501B A23B
  • MiniMax M3
  • Other models
  • Median

DATASHEET

Specs and pricing

Beam 1.0 501B A23B is 20% cheaper per output token and runs 6× faster in our speed test. MiniMax M3 scores higher on StealthMark. Both take about 1M tokens of context.

  • Beam 1.0 501B A23B
  • MiniMax M3
  • Other models
  • Median
PricePer 1M output tokens, input below
Beam 1.0 501B A23B: $120% cheaper$0.25 inputMiniMax M3: $1.20$0.30 input
Context windowTokens per request, max output below
Beam 1.0 501B A23B: 1MTied128K max outputMiniMax M3: 1MTied512K max output
Output speedTokens per second, our measurement
Beam 1.0 501B A23B: 9726× fastertokens/sMiniMax M3: 162tokens/s
SizeTotal and active parameters
Beam 1.0 501B A23B: 501B23.4B activeMiniMax M3: 428B23B active
Developer
Reflection AIMiniMax
Released
16 Oct 20261 Jun 2026
Origin
United StatesSingapore
Input → output
Text → textText, image, video → text
Architecture
Sparse mixture-of-experts transformer; 52 layers (3 dense, 49 MoE), 256 experts with 8 selected per token; gated GQA and sliding-window attentionMixture-of-Experts with MiniMax Sparse Attention and native multimodal encoder

Full datasheets, every price and sourceBeam 1.0 501B A23B ↗MiniMax M3 ↗

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

MiniMax M3 22.1/100Rank 38/47

Survived 0 of 3
Foresight: complete playing field
Level 36 ptsTurn 7 / 20

Points per level

LevelBeam 1.0 501B A23BMiniMax M3
Level 1Second Thoughts
18 ptsOut of lives
17 ptsOut of lives
Level 2Pressure Pot
9 ptsOut of lives
3 ptsOut of lives
Level 3Hide or Flight
9 ptsSurvived
6 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

MiniMax M3 31.4/100Rank 34/48

Cleared 2 of 5
Latch: complete playing field
Level 58.8 ptsTurn 11 / 40

Points per level

LevelBeam 1.0 501B A23BMiniMax M3
Level 1Hold the door
5.2 ptsCleared
5.2 ptsCleared
Level 2Crossfeed
9.6 ptsCleared
9.4 ptsClearedFinished early · 1 beacon left
Level 3Relay vault
11.2 ptsFinished early
0.2 ptsFinished early
Level 4Passing bay
3.6 ptsFinished early
14.2 ptsFinished early
Level 5Second thoughts
5 ptsFinished early
8.8 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.

MiniMax M3

The centered sphere, aligned left wall image, smaller lower-left continuation and partially occluded floor image provide recognizable local mirror coherence. Cyan remains airborne, the main sphere resembles white marble, and missing right-side imagery, recursive optics and panel mappings leave the scene substantially incomplete.

Score breakdown

CategoryBeam 1.0 501B A23BMiniMax M3
State at 600 ms20.5/257.0/25
Camera and placement11.5/1514.5/15
Reflections2.0/12022.0/120
Materials and scale3.0/105.0/10
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.

MiniMax M3

The oversized coral M silhouette dominates clearly, with an expressive charcoal face and appealing miniature body. Limbs connect coherently and the cube reads clearly. The lowered left hand only loosely suggests the requested hip pose. Thin highlights and simple gradients provide limited sculptural volume; the cube's glow and grounding shadow are restrained.

Score breakdown

CategoryBeam 1.0 501B A23BMiniMax M3
Task & likeness4.0/108.0/10
Anatomy & construction3.5/106.0/10
Space & placement5.5/107.0/10
Light & reflections5.5/106.0/10
Purposeful detail4.5/104.0/10
Artistry & character4.0/104.0/10
Materials & effects4.5/104.0/10
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.

MiniMax M3

A small robot with an oversized angular head presents a glowing object. The scene tests character proportions, gesture and contrasting materials.

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.

MiniMax M3

The centered portrait, dark hair and muted palette suggest Mona Lisa, but characteristic likeness and pose are poorly reproduced. The broad oval face lacks her subtle smile; rounded shoulders and a lone mittenlike hand leave the crossed-arm construction unresolved. Warm shading supplies some volume, while blurred landscape bands, generic clothing and indistinct features limit the drawing.

Score breakdown

CategoryBeam 1.0 501B A23BMiniMax M3
Task & likeness0.0/102.5/10
Anatomy & construction0.0/101.5/10
Space & placement0.0/102.5/10
Light & reflections0.5/103.0/10
Purposeful detail0.0/101.5/10
Artistry & character0.0/101.5/10
Materials & effects0.0/102.0/10
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.

MiniMax M3

A cheerful, coherent sunset illustration with framing palms, warm gradients and an aligned sun reflection. Animals and beach toys add character, but their construction remains basic. The sailboat appears suspended above the water horizon, while absent cast shadows weaken foreground contact. Clean geometric shapes provide polish without substantial texture or depth.

Score breakdown

CategoryBeam 1.0 501B A23BMiniMax M3
Task & likeness7.0/108.0/10
Anatomy & construction5.0/104.5/10
Space & placement6.0/106.0/10
Light & reflections5.0/107.0/10
Purposeful detail5.5/106.0/10
Artistry & character4.0/105.0/10
Materials & effects5.0/105.0/10
Visual integrity5.0/105.5/10

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.

MiniMax M3

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.

MiniMax M3

The raccoon sits above the dog's back, and the dog reaches toward the jet ski controls. Expressive faces and a vivid sunset make the scene appealing. Construction is simplified: the dog's paws and steering grip are ambiguous, the hull is shallow, and blurred wake patches give limited water displacement. Sunset glow exceeds the lighting modeled on the riders.

Score breakdown

CategoryBeam 1.0 501B A23BMiniMax M3
Task & likeness5.0/108.0/10
Anatomy & construction3.5/105.5/10
Space & placement5.5/106.5/10
Light & reflections4.0/106.0/10
Purposeful detail6.5/107.0/10
Artistry & character3.5/106.0/10
Materials & effects5.0/106.0/10
Visual integrity6.5/107.0/10

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.

MiniMax M3

The pelican's long bill, pouch and curved neck read clearly, and the warm sunset gives the composition appeal. Bicycle construction weakens the riding action: feet do not convincingly engage the pedals, crank connections are unclear, and body support is unresolved. Clean silhouettes and orderly spokes provide a competent illustrative finish.

Score breakdown

CategoryBeam 1.0 501B A23BMiniMax M3
Task & likeness5.5/108.0/10
Anatomy & construction4.5/105.5/10
Space & placement5.0/106.5/10
Light & reflections4.0/106.5/10
Purposeful detail4.0/107.5/10
Artistry & character4.0/106.5/10
Materials & effects4.0/106.0/10
Visual integrity5.5/106.5/10

Benchmark task

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