STEALTHMARK · HEAD TO HEAD

All comparisons ↗

Beam 1.0 501B A23B vs Qwen3.8-27B

Qwen3.8-27B leads Beam 1.0 501B A23B by 19.8 points on StealthMark, 51.7 to 31.9. It leads on all 9 benchmarks. Qwen3.8-27B 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
51.7/100Overall rank 14/53

General Intelligence

30.9/100
46.2/100

Visual Intelligence

33.8/100
61.4/100

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
  • Qwen3.8-27B
  • Other models
  • Median

DATASHEET

Specs and pricing

Beam 1.0 501B A23B is 1.7× cheaper per output token and runs 12× faster in our speed test. Qwen3.8-27B scores higher on StealthMark. Both take about 1M tokens of context.

  • Beam 1.0 501B A23B
  • Qwen3.8-27B
  • Other models
  • Median
PricePer 1M output tokens, input below
Beam 1.0 501B A23B: $11.7× cheaper$0.25 inputQwen3.8-27B: $1.70$0.42 input
Context windowTokens per request, max output below
Beam 1.0 501B A23B: 1MTied128K max outputQwen3.8-27B: 1MTied128K max output
Output speedTokens per second, our measurement
Beam 1.0 501B A23B: 97212× fastertokens/sQwen3.8-27B: 78tokens/s
SizeTotal and active parameters
Beam 1.0 501B A23B: 501B23.4B activeQwen3.8-27B: 27BAll activeEstimated
Developer
Reflection AIQwen
Released
16 Oct 202614 Aug 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 attentionDense causal language model with vision encoder; hybrid Gated DeltaNet and gated attention; MTP-trained

Full datasheets, every price and sourceBeam 1.0 501B A23B ↗Qwen3.8-27B ↗

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

Qwen3.8-27B 63.0/100Rank 7/47

Survived 1 of 3
Foresight: complete playing field
Level 311 ptsTurn 16 / 20

Points per level

LevelBeam 1.0 501B A23BQwen3.8-27B
Level 1Second Thoughts
18 ptsOut of lives
26 ptsSurvived
Level 2Pressure Pot
9 ptsOut of lives
12 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

Qwen3.8-27B 38.6/100Rank 28/48

Cleared 2 of 5
Latch: complete playing field
Level 515.8 ptsTurn 31 / 40

Points per level

LevelBeam 1.0 501B A23BQwen3.8-27B
Level 1Hold the door
5.2 ptsCleared
5.2 ptsCleared
Level 2Crossfeed
9.6 ptsCleared
9.8 ptsCleared
Level 3Relay vault
11.2 ptsFinished early
11.2 ptsFinished early
Level 4Passing bay
3.6 ptsFinished early
13.2 ptsFinished early
Level 5Second thoughts
5 ptsFinished early
15.8 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.

Qwen3.8-27B

The room fills the complete 16:9 frame without visible borders or labels. Central placement fits the wider frame, and the paint colors follow the expected vertical order. Bilateral side images, diminishing echoes and an overlapping floor image provide limited mirror depth. Broad sphere surfaces lack ordered nested room imagery, while planar panel sequences and outer chains remain missing or unresolved. Soft highlights do not establish emitter mapping, while paint attachment and transport history are only partly supported.

Score breakdown

CategoryBeam 1.0 501B A23BQwen3.8-27B
State at 600 ms20.5/2523.0/25
Camera and placement11.5/1513.0/15
Reflections2.0/12024.0/120
Materials and scale3.0/106.5/10
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.

Qwen3.8-27B

A cohesive emerald-and-gold illustration with a gentle expression, flowing robes, luminous halo and three clearly ringed orbs. Limbs remain connected, and the asymmetric legs communicate floating. The rounded face reads somewhat bear-like; the raised palm faces outward rather than upward, and chest-hand fingers are crowded. Clean ornamentation exceeds the comparatively simple anatomical modeling and shading.

Score breakdown

CategoryBeam 1.0 501B A23BQwen3.8-27B
Task & likeness4.0/108.0/10
Anatomy & construction3.5/107.5/10
Space & placement5.5/108.0/10
Light & reflections5.5/107.5/10
Purposeful detail4.5/108.0/10
Artistry & character4.0/107.5/10
Materials & effects4.5/107.5/10
Visual integrity7.0/108.5/10

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.

Qwen3.8-27B

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.

Qwen3.8-27B

The centered portrait, dark clothing and overlapping hands evoke the Mona Lisa, but replication is weak. The face is excessively elongated, the eyes stare broadly, and the hands reduce to rounded masses with shallow finger marks. Soft shading creates some volume, while the landscape remains indistinct. The precise gold frame is more resolved than the portrait.

Score breakdown

CategoryBeam 1.0 501B A23BQwen3.8-27B
Task & likeness0.0/104.0/10
Anatomy & construction0.0/104.5/10
Space & placement0.0/104.5/10
Light & reflections0.5/105.0/10
Purposeful detail0.0/105.0/10
Artistry & character0.0/105.0/10
Materials & effects0.0/105.0/10
Visual integrity0.0/105.0/10

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.

Qwen3.8-27B

The sweeping palm, glowing sunset and purple-to-orange palette create an appealing beach composition. Birds, animals and reflections fulfill the brief, with clean silhouettes and readable small accents. Schematic anatomy, repetitive shoreline geometry and limited perspective integration constrain depth. Foreground lighting and uniform reflection bars provide atmosphere but little physical coherence.

Score breakdown

CategoryBeam 1.0 501B A23BQwen3.8-27B
Task & likeness7.0/108.5/10
Anatomy & construction5.0/106.5/10
Space & placement6.0/106.0/10
Light & reflections5.0/106.0/10
Purposeful detail5.5/107.0/10
Artistry & character4.0/107.0/10
Materials & effects5.0/106.5/10
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.

Qwen3.8-27B

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.

Qwen3.8-27B

The raccoon clearly rides on the dog's back, and the dog reaches the jet ski's steering grip. Cheerful expressions, a bright palette and sweeping wake make the action readable. Anatomy and machinery remain simplified, with overlapping paws and limited seat definition. Flat lighting, sparse surface detail and broad white splash shapes limit depth and finish. A clipped gray fragment interrupts the upper-left corner.

Score breakdown

CategoryBeam 1.0 501B A23BQwen3.8-27B
Task & likeness5.0/108.5/10
Anatomy & construction3.5/106.5/10
Space & placement5.5/107.0/10
Light & reflections4.0/105.5/10
Purposeful detail6.5/106.5/10
Artistry & character3.5/106.5/10
Materials & effects5.0/106.5/10
Visual integrity6.5/107.5/10

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.

Qwen3.8-27B

The pelican’s oversized bill, straw hat and flowing scarf create a distinctive focal character against a well-composed coastal sunset. Wheels and frame are readable, but the wings do not reach the steering, overlapping legs obscure separate pedal contacts, and the crank linkage is unclear. Clean vector shapes and restrained shading support an appealing illustration with limited physical depth.

Score breakdown

CategoryBeam 1.0 501B A23BQwen3.8-27B
Task & likeness5.5/108.0/10
Anatomy & construction4.5/105.5/10
Space & placement5.0/107.0/10
Light & reflections4.0/107.0/10
Purposeful detail4.0/107.5/10
Artistry & character4.0/107.5/10
Materials & effects4.0/106.5/10
Visual integrity5.5/108.0/10

Benchmark task

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