STEALTHMARK · HEAD TO HEAD

All comparisons ↗

Gemma 4 31B vs MISSINGNO.

MISSINGNO. scores 12.1 points higher overall (38.0 vs 25.9). MISSINGNO. scores higher on Ground Truth.

See the difference ↘
All results ↗
Model guide ↗

Overall StealthMark

25.9/100
38.0/100

General Intelligence

13.9/100
33.6/100

Visual Intelligence

40.1/100
43.3/100

Newton's Mirror

Same task instructions

Physics, perspective and recursive reflections, tested together. Explore the test ↗

Gemma 4 31B15.4/100

Gemma 4 31B: Newton's Mirror SVG benchmark
Researcher observations

The sphere's volume, separate airborne black blob and vertical color ordering are readable. The large, low sphere, plain surrounding planes and absent nested optical imagery leave the central geometric and reflection requirements unsupported. Paint contact and transport remain unresolved. Material credit recognizes the visible convex shading, highlights and distinct surface colors while retaining deductions for the schematic finish and oversized blobs.

Benchmark task

A spinning metal sphere and paint in a mirrored room test physical reasoning, perspective and consistency across repeated reflections.

MISSINGNO.24.1/100

MISSINGNO.: Newton's Mirror SVG benchmark
Researcher observations

The centered sphere, separate airborne black blob and cyan-above-crimson ordering provide limited valid structure. The colored beads do not establish the required impact and transport histories. One dim floor image supports a small part of the optical system, while the defining wall repetitions, nested sphere imagery and emitter mappings are missing. Rounded volume and some gloss earn material credit, tempered by soft surface appearance and excessive paint-bead scale.

Benchmark task

A spinning metal sphere and paint in a mirrored room test physical reasoning, perspective and consistency across repeated reflections.

Compare category scores
CategoryGemma 4 31BMISSINGNO.
State at 600 ms8.0/2511.5/25
Camera and placement3.0/157.0/15
Reflections0.0/12012.0/120
Materials and scale6.0/105.5/10
Floor-damage reward0.0/100.0/10

Selfie

Different task instructions

Gemma 4 31B60.9/100

Gemma 4 31B: Selfie SVG benchmark
Researcher observations

A clean, appealing luminous mascot with coherent body continuity and a readable jar-hugging pose. Rounded highlights, smooth gradients and balanced framing work well. The teardrop silhouette, modest eyes and nearly even grin only partly satisfy the character brief; sparse jar construction and simple geometry limit sophistication.

Benchmark task

A small luminous creature proudly holding an empty glass jar tests expression, transparent materials and the balance of character and prop.

MISSINGNO.49.7/100

MISSINGNO.: Selfie SVG benchmark
Researcher observations

An appealing purple character with a readable pleased expression and raised-moustache joke. Smooth shading and clean contours support the simple design, but indistinct mitten grips, minimally textured curls and an uncompressed strap weaken the requested physical interaction. The jelly suggests gloss more convincingly than translucency.

Benchmark task

A glossy purple jelly struggles with an oversized fake moustache at a playful checkpoint. The scene tests comic expression, physical contact and the appearance of a soft translucent body.

Compare category scores
CategoryGemma 4 31BMISSINGNO.
Task & likeness6.0/105.5/10
Anatomy & construction6.0/104.5/10
Space & placement7.5/106.0/10
Light & reflections6.5/105.5/10
Purposeful detail5.5/104.5/10
Artistry & character5.0/104.5/10
Materials & effects6.5/104.0/10
Visual integrity7.5/106.0/10

Mona Lisa

Different task instructions

Gemma 4 31B35.1/100

Gemma 4 31B: Mona Lisa SVG benchmark
Researcher observations

The portrait is recognizable through its silhouette, palette and smile, with clean execution of simple shapes. Replication remains weak: the face and pose differ markedly, hands become fingerless ovals, clothing lacks construction, and the landscape loses its atmospheric detail. Basic gradients provide limited volume.

Benchmark task

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

MISSINGNO.28.1/100

MISSINGNO.: Mona Lisa SVG benchmark
Researcher observations

Clean contours, connected body forms and gentle gradients support a basic, coherent portrait. Likeness remains weak: the face dominates the body, the seated angle is lost, and crossed hands become dark lobes without traceable wrists or fingers. Readable facial details add some drawing complexity, but clothing, landscape and material treatment remain sparse.

Benchmark task

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

Compare category scores
CategoryGemma 4 31BMISSINGNO.
Task & likeness3.0/101.5/10
Anatomy & construction4.0/102.5/10
Space & placement4.0/102.5/10
Light & reflections3.5/103.0/10
Purposeful detail2.0/102.0/10
Artistry & character3.5/103.5/10
Materials & effects2.5/102.0/10
Visual integrity5.5/106.0/10

Beach

Different task instructions

Gemma 4 31B29.2/100

Gemma 4 31B: Beach SVG benchmark
Researcher observations

A coherent beach illustration with clean silhouettes, a sweeping shoreline and an effective sunset palette. Requested subjects are recognizable, but primitive animal construction, sparse detail, unsupported palm placement and schematic reflections limit drawing sophistication and physical credibility.

Benchmark task

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

MISSINGNO.43.9/100

MISSINGNO.: Beach SVG benchmark
Researcher observations

A coherent sunset beach with clear requested subjects, balanced framing and clean shapes. The aligned solar reflection and warm gradients establish atmosphere. Primitive animal construction, ambiguous furniture, sparse depth cues and minimally developed surfaces limit its drawing complexity and physical richness.

Benchmark task

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

Compare category scores
CategoryGemma 4 31BMISSINGNO.
Task & likeness5.0/107.0/10
Anatomy & construction2.0/104.0/10
Space & placement5.0/106.5/10
Light & reflections2.5/105.0/10
Purposeful detail2.0/103.0/10
Artistry & character2.0/103.0/10
Materials & effects2.0/105.0/10
Visual integrity5.0/103.5/10

Ground Truth

Same task instructions

Gemma 4 31B12.0/100

Gemma 4 31B: Ground Truth SVG benchmark
Benchmark task

A plank, computer mouse and blueberry in a steel room test physical stability, spatial relationships, materials and lighting.

MISSINGNO.44.1/100

MISSINGNO.: Ground Truth SVG benchmark
Benchmark task

A plank, computer mouse and blueberry in a steel room test physical stability, spatial relationships, materials and lighting.

Raccoon

Different task instructions

Gemma 4 31B38.2/100

Gemma 4 31B: Raccoon SVG benchmark
Researcher observations

Clean, simple silhouettes communicate a raccoon riding on a dog. Limited animal specificity, absent steering controls and a flat platform weaken the requested scene. Small facial marks provide purposeful detail, while unresolved support, flat lighting and schematic water restrict physical coherence. Primitive but coherent construction supports basic drawing quality.

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.

MISSINGNO.57.5/100

MISSINGNO.: Raccoon SVG benchmark
Researcher observations

The requested interaction reads clearly through recognizable animals, expressive faces and a coherent hull-water relationship. Clean curves and readable accessories give the cartoon polish. Partly unresolved grips and supporting contacts limit physical construction; modest shape complexity, weak directional lighting and schematic water constrain its finish.

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.

Compare category scores
CategoryGemma 4 31BMISSINGNO.
Task & likeness4.5/108.0/10
Anatomy & construction4.0/105.0/10
Space & placement4.0/105.5/10
Light & reflections1.0/105.0/10
Purposeful detail3.0/106.0/10
Artistry & character4.0/105.0/10
Materials & effects2.0/104.5/10
Visual integrity8.0/107.0/10

Pelican

Different task instructions

Gemma 4 31B50.5/100

Gemma 4 31B: Pelican SVG benchmark
Researcher observations

A clean, readable illustration with balanced placement and coherent basic geometry. The sky gradient and ground shadow establish diffuse illumination. Primitive shapes and sparse detail limit artistry, while unclear leg attachment, missing pedal contact and unresolved steering weaken the riding action.

Benchmark task

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

MISSINGNO.58.8/100

MISSINGNO.: Pelican SVG benchmark
Researcher observations

A coherent, cheerful illustration with recognizable pelican features, balanced composition, clean contours and useful small details. Its controlled curves and layered wheels demonstrate competent drawing skill. Ambiguous pedal and steering contacts, sparse drivetrain construction and weak directional lighting limit the riding mechanics and finish.

Benchmark task

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

Compare category scores
CategoryGemma 4 31BMISSINGNO.
Task & likeness6.0/107.0/10
Anatomy & construction4.0/105.5/10
Space & placement6.0/106.0/10
Light & reflections5.0/105.0/10
Purposeful detail3.5/105.5/10
Artistry & character4.0/106.0/10
Materials & effects4.0/104.5/10
Visual integrity8.0/106.5/10