STEALTHMARK · HEAD TO HEAD

All comparisons ↗

Beam 1.0 501B A23B vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

Beam 1.0 501B A23B leads Qwen3.6-35B-A3B by 11.1 points on StealthMark, 31.9 to 20.8. It leads on 6 of 9 benchmarks, including both games, and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B on 3. 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 ↗
All results ↗

Overall StealthMark

31.9/100Overall rank 42/53
20.8/100Overall rank 46/53

General Intelligence

30.9/100
12.7/100

Visual Intelligence

33.8/100
34.0/100

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
Local modelOpen model · Apache-2.0

BENCHMARK BY BENCHMARK

Where each model leads

  • Beam 1.0 501B A23B
  • Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
  • Other models
  • Median

DATASHEET

Specs and pricing

Beam 1.0 501B A23B scores higher on StealthMark, is 49% cheaper per output token and runs 1.7× faster in our speed test. Both take about 1M tokens of context.

  • Beam 1.0 501B A23B
  • Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
  • Other models
  • Median
PricePer 1M output tokens, input below
Beam 1.0 501B A23B: $149% cheaper$0.25 inputQwen3.6-35B-A3B: $1.49$0.25 input
Context windowTokens per request, max output below
Beam 1.0 501B A23B: 1MTied128K max outputQwen3.6-35B-A3B: 1.01MTied64K max output
Output speedTokens per second, our measurement
Beam 1.0 501B A23B: 9721.7× fastertokens/sQwen3.6-35B-A3B: 577tokens/s
SizeTotal and active parameters
Beam 1.0 501B A23B: 501B23.4B activeQwen3.6-35B-A3B: 35B3B active
Developer
Reflection AIQwen
Released
16 Oct 202616 Apr 2026
Origin
United StatesChina
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 attentionMoE causal language model with vision encoder; Gated DeltaNet + gated attention; 256 experts, 8 routed + 1 shared active

Full datasheets, every price and sourceBeam 1.0 501B A23B ↗Qwen3.6-35B-A3B ↗

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

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B 20.7/100Rank 40/47

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

Points per level

LevelBeam 1.0 501B A23BQwen3.6-35B-A3B
Level 1Second Thoughts
18 ptsOut of lives
4 ptsOut of lives
Level 2Pressure Pot
9 ptsOut of lives
3 ptsOut of lives
Level 3Hide or Flight
9 ptsSurvived
9 ptsSurvived

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

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B 3.6/100Rank 44/48

Cleared 1 of 5
Latch: complete playing field
Level 57.8 ptsTurn 36 / 40

Points per level

LevelBeam 1.0 501B A23BQwen3.6-35B-A3B
Level 1Hold the door
5.2 ptsCleared
5.2 ptsCleared
Level 2Crossfeed
9.6 ptsCleared
1 ptsOut of turns
Level 3Relay vault
11.2 ptsFinished early
0.2 ptsFinished early
Level 4Passing bay
3.6 ptsFinished early
3 ptsOut of turns
Level 5Second thoughts
5 ptsFinished early
7.8 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.

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

The artwork demonstrates rounded volume, recognizable paint colors and a compact black feature at an appropriate screen height. The enlarged main-sphere framing, unsupported crimson and cyan interaction histories, oversized compact paint balls and largely missing mirror structure remain substantial weaknesses. The core assessment is 20/170; with no demonstrated floor damage, the combined assessment remains 20/180.

Score breakdown

CategoryBeam 1.0 501B A23BQwen3.6-35B-A3B
State at 600 ms20.5/252.5/25
Camera and placement11.5/154.0/15
Reflections2.0/1203.5/120
Materials and scale3.0/102.5/10
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.

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

An appealing fantasy illustration with coordinated ornament, readable suspension and luminous turquoise accents. Plausible limb attachments and soft shading support competent execution. Bear-like proportions, unclear paw gestures, insufficient white robe fabric, crowded chest details and shallow material modeling limit its finish.

Score breakdown

CategoryBeam 1.0 501B A23BQwen3.6-35B-A3B
Task & likeness4.0/106.0/10
Anatomy & construction3.5/106.0/10
Space & placement5.5/106.5/10
Light & reflections5.5/107.0/10
Purposeful detail4.5/106.5/10
Artistry & character4.0/106.0/10
Materials & effects4.5/105.5/10
Visual integrity7.0/107.5/10

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.

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

A floating capybara in ornate robes tests character anatomy, layered fabric and the placement of surrounding luminous forms.

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.

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

A recognizable but basic geometric interpretation. Muted colors and soft shading provide cohesion, while weak likeness, unresolved hands, rigid anatomy and shallow landscape construction substantially limit the replication.

Score breakdown

CategoryBeam 1.0 501B A23BQwen3.6-35B-A3B
Task & likeness0.0/102.0/10
Anatomy & construction0.0/101.0/10
Space & placement0.0/102.0/10
Light & reflections0.5/100.5/10
Purposeful detail0.0/101.5/10
Artistry & character0.0/101.5/10
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.

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

A recognizable beach sunset with balanced framing and appealing color transitions. Birds, boats and small animals fulfill the main scene requirements. Elementary anatomy, faint details, weak grounding and rigid reflection columns limit depth and finish.

Score breakdown

CategoryBeam 1.0 501B A23BQwen3.6-35B-A3B
Task & likeness7.0/107.5/10
Anatomy & construction5.0/104.5/10
Space & placement6.0/105.5/10
Light & reflections5.0/104.5/10
Purposeful detail5.5/104.5/10
Artistry & character4.0/104.5/10
Materials & effects5.0/105.5/10
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

Different task instructions

Physical reasoning, light and visual reconstruction.

The judgment

Beam 1.0 501B A23B

This benchmark has not been assessed yet.

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

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.

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

Clean shapes, cheerful faces and bright colors make the riding arrangement readable. The dog does not visibly operate the control, while awkward limbs, shallow hull placement and stiff poses limit credibility. Gradients and layered foam add modest volume and motion. The obscured tail attachment does not establish detachment.

Score breakdown

CategoryBeam 1.0 501B A23BQwen3.6-35B-A3B
Task & likeness5.0/104.5/10
Anatomy & construction3.5/103.5/10
Space & placement5.5/105.5/10
Light & reflections4.0/103.5/10
Purposeful detail6.5/104.5/10
Artistry & character3.5/104.0/10
Materials & effects5.0/104.0/10
Visual integrity6.5/103.5/10

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

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.

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

A cheerful, readable illustration with a distinctive pelican silhouette, clean contours and an orderly landscape. Soft glow and restrained shading provide modest atmosphere. Construction is weaker: the handlebar is disconnected, wings do not reach the controls, and overlapping legs leave pedaling ambiguous. Simple forms and mostly flat materials limit depth and drawing sophistication.

Score breakdown

CategoryBeam 1.0 501B A23BQwen3.6-35B-A3B
Task & likeness5.5/107.0/10
Anatomy & construction4.5/103.5/10
Space & placement5.0/106.0/10
Light & reflections4.0/105.5/10
Purposeful detail4.0/107.0/10
Artistry & character4.0/105.0/10
Materials & effects4.0/105.5/10
Visual integrity5.5/104.5/10

Benchmark task

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