STEALTHMARK · HEAD TO HEAD

All comparisons ↗

Beam 1.0 501B A23B vs Muse Wonder

Muse Wonder leads Beam 1.0 501B A23B by 25.1 points on StealthMark, 57.0 to 31.9. It leads on all 9 benchmarks. Muse Wonder 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
57.0/100Overall rank 10/53

General Intelligence

30.9/100
53.1/100

Visual Intelligence

33.8/100
64.0/100

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
  • Muse Wonder
  • Other models
  • Median

DATASHEET

Specs and pricing

Beam 1.0 501B A23B is 20× cheaper per output token and runs 1.7× faster in our speed test. Muse Wonder scores higher on StealthMark. Both take about 1M tokens of context.

  • Beam 1.0 501B A23B
  • Muse Wonder
  • Other models
  • Median
PricePer 1M output tokens, input below
Beam 1.0 501B A23B: $120× cheaper$0.25 inputMuse Wonder: $20$4 input
Context windowTokens per request, max output below
Beam 1.0 501B A23B: 1MTied128K max outputMuse Wonder: 1MTied
Output speedTokens per second, our measurement
Beam 1.0 501B A23B: 9721.7× fastertokens/sMuse Wonder: 570tokens/s
SizeTotal and active parameters
Beam 1.0 501B A23B: 501B23.4B activeMuse Wonder: Not disclosed
Developer
Reflection AIMeta
Released
16 Oct 202612 Oct 2026
Origin
United StatesBoth
Input → output
Text → textText, image, video, audio, PDF → 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 attentionNot published

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

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

Muse Wonder 52.3/100Rank 17/47

Survived 0 of 3
Foresight: complete playing field
Level 311 ptsTurn 17 / 20

Points per level

LevelBeam 1.0 501B A23BMuse Wonder
Level 1Second Thoughts
18 ptsOut of lives
16 ptsOut of lives
Level 2Pressure Pot
9 ptsOut of lives
10 ptsOut of lives
Level 3Hide or Flight
9 ptsSurvived
11 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

Muse Wonder 67.0/100Rank 17/48

Cleared 5 of 5
Latch: complete playing field
Level 520.6 ptsTurn 27 / 40

Points per level

LevelBeam 1.0 501B A23BMuse Wonder
Level 1Hold the door
5.2 ptsCleared
5.2 ptsCleared
Level 2Crossfeed
9.6 ptsCleared
9 ptsCleared
Level 3Relay vault
11.2 ptsFinished early
18.8 ptsCleared
Level 4Passing bay
3.6 ptsFinished early
17.8 ptsClearedFinished early · 1 beacon left
Level 5Second thoughts
5 ptsFinished early
20.6 ptsCleared

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.

Muse Wonder

The flattened cyan cap, separate airborne black blob and crimson droplets support much of the contact sequence, although crimson adhesion and forward carriage remain unresolved. Main-sphere placement is broadly compatible with the prescribed view. Sparse isolated mirror images replace the defining repeated room structure and curved nested reflections. The crimson mass is visibly oversized, and the top-center lamp image is missing.

Score breakdown

CategoryBeam 1.0 501B A23BMuse Wonder
State at 600 ms20.5/2522.0/25
Camera and placement11.5/1512.0/15
Reflections2.0/12021.5/120
Materials and scale3.0/107.5/10
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.

Muse Wonder

An appealing, coherent cartoon with a readable effortful expression and clear forefeet gripping the trunk. Soft colours and controlled contours support its tenderness. Smooth ears, stiff foreleg construction, limited surface texture and uncertain seed contact keep the execution below intricate illustration quality.

Score breakdown

CategoryBeam 1.0 501B A23BMuse Wonder
Task & likeness4.0/107.5/10
Anatomy & construction3.5/107.0/10
Space & placement5.5/107.5/10
Light & reflections5.5/107.0/10
Purposeful detail4.5/107.5/10
Artistry & character4.0/106.5/10
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.

Muse Wonder

A small elephant protecting a delicate seed tests expressive anatomy, physical contact and contrasting organic 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.

Muse Wonder

A competent illustrative interpretation with controlled curves, readable details and coherent depth layers. Facial, hair and garment shading demonstrate more development than basic construction. Replication remains limited by the frontal pose, elongated face and pronounced smile; crowded fingers, weak contact shadows and smooth materials constrain anatomical and painterly conviction.

Score breakdown

CategoryBeam 1.0 501B A23BMuse Wonder
Task & likeness0.0/105.5/10
Anatomy & construction0.0/105.5/10
Space & placement0.0/105.5/10
Light & reflections0.5/105.5/10
Purposeful detail0.0/105.5/10
Artistry & character0.0/105.5/10
Materials & effects0.0/105.0/10
Visual integrity0.0/106.5/10

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.

Muse Wonder

A lively beach illustration with expressive animals, controlled colour transitions and unusually readable accessories. Connected graphic forms make the activities recognizable. Crowded overlaps, compressed depth, schematic joints, weak directional shadows and limited material variation constrain its physical coherence and refinement.

Score breakdown

CategoryBeam 1.0 501B A23BMuse Wonder
Task & likeness7.0/108.5/10
Anatomy & construction5.0/106.0/10
Space & placement6.0/106.5/10
Light & reflections5.0/106.5/10
Purposeful detail5.5/109.0/10
Artistry & character4.0/107.0/10
Materials & effects5.0/106.0/10
Visual integrity5.0/107.0/10

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.

Muse Wonder

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.

Muse Wonder

An expressive, coherent cartoon demonstrates the requested riding and steering interaction. Clean contours, differentiated accessories and energetic spray support its appeal. Concealed seated contacts, compressed vehicle perspective and weak directional lighting limit physical resolution despite the detailed presentation.

Score breakdown

CategoryBeam 1.0 501B A23BMuse Wonder
Task & likeness5.0/107.5/10
Anatomy & construction3.5/105.5/10
Space & placement5.5/106.5/10
Light & reflections4.0/104.5/10
Purposeful detail6.5/107.5/10
Artistry & character3.5/105.5/10
Materials & effects5.0/107.0/10
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.

Muse Wonder

A controlled, expressive seaside illustration with a distinctive pelican, coherent bicycle geometry and successfully resolved graphic detail. Visible pedal support and plausible occlusion strengthen the riding construction. Aligned wheels and layered scenery establish placement. Limited cast shadows, simplified leg articulation and restrained material modeling constrain its physical finish.

Score breakdown

CategoryBeam 1.0 501B A23BMuse Wonder
Task & likeness5.5/108.5/10
Anatomy & construction4.5/106.0/10
Space & placement5.0/107.5/10
Light & reflections4.0/105.5/10
Purposeful detail4.0/108.5/10
Artistry & character4.0/107.5/10
Materials & effects4.0/106.0/10
Visual integrity5.5/108.0/10

Benchmark task

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