STEALTHMARK · HEAD TO HEAD

All comparisons ↗

Iceman Contributor vs Kimi K3.1 Pro

Kimi K3.1 Pro leads Iceman Contributor by 37.5 points on StealthMark, 56.7 to 19.2. It leads on all 9 benchmarks. Kimi K3.1 Pro scores higher on Newton's Mirror, with its largest category advantage in state at 600 ms.

See the difference ↘
Model guide ↗
All results ↗

Overall StealthMark

19.2/100Overall rank 47/53
56.7/100Overall rank 11/53

General Intelligence

11.7/100
53.9/100

Visual Intelligence

31.0/100
62.0/100

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

BENCHMARK BY BENCHMARK

Where each model leads

  • Iceman Contributor
  • Kimi K3.1 Pro
  • Other models
  • Median

DATASHEET

Specs and pricing

Kimi K3.1 Pro scores higher on StealthMark and runs 2.5× faster in our speed test.

  • Iceman Contributor
  • Kimi K3.1 Pro
  • Other models
  • Median
PricePer 1M output tokens, input below
Iceman Contributor: No list priceKimi K3.1 Pro: $10$2 input
Context windowTokens per request, max output below
Iceman Contributor: Not publishedKimi K3.1 Pro: 1M1M max output
Output speedTokens per second, our measurement
Iceman Contributor: 46tokens/sKimi K3.1 Pro: 1172.5× fastertokens/s
SizeTotal and active parameters
Iceman Contributor: Not disclosedKimi K3.1 Pro: 2.8T104B activeEstimated
Developer
Not publishedMoonshot AI
Released
Not published23 Oct 2026
Origin
Not publishedChina
Input → output
Not publishedText, image, video → text
Architecture
Not publishedPost-trained version of Kimi K3, a Mixture-of-Experts model

Full datasheets, every price and sourceKimi K3.1 Pro ↗

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.

Iceman Contributor 3.2/100Rank 47/47

Survived 0 of 3
Foresight: complete playing field
Level 31 ptsTurn 7 / 20

Kimi K3.1 Pro 61.1/100Rank 10/47

Survived 1 of 3
Foresight: complete playing field
Level 315 ptsTurn 20 / 20

Points per level

LevelIceman ContributorKimi K3.1 Pro
Level 1Second Thoughts
0 ptsOut of lives
15 ptsOut of lives
Level 2Pressure Pot
3 ptsOut of lives
12 ptsOut of lives
Level 3Hide or Flight
1 ptsOut of lives
15 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.

Iceman Contributor 3.6/100Rank 44/48

Cleared 1 of 5
Latch: complete playing field
Level 55 ptsTurn 25 / 40

Kimi K3.1 Pro 81.8/100Rank 8/48

Cleared 5 of 5
Latch: complete playing field
Level 519.8 ptsTurn 31 / 40

Points per level

LevelIceman ContributorKimi K3.1 Pro
Level 1Hold the door
5.2 ptsCleared
5.2 ptsCleared
Level 2Crossfeed
2.8 ptsFinished early
9.8 ptsCleared
Level 3Relay vault
2.2 ptsFinished early
19.2 ptsCleared
Level 4Passing bay
4 ptsFinished early
18.2 ptsClearedFinished early · 3 beacons left
Level 5Second thoughts
5 ptsFinished early
19.8 ptsCleared

Newton's Mirror

Same task instructions

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

The judgment

Iceman Contributor

The image provides limited evidence through rounded volume, faint wall strips and floor echoes. Its main sphere is small and low, the paint beads do not establish the required interaction history, and most of the defining mirror structure is missing.

Kimi K3.1 Pro

The settled sphere, separate airborne black paint and crimson-before-cyan interaction are supported, with a modest crimson travel overshoot. A shared downward framing displacement remains after accounting for the square canvas. The principal limitation is the reflection system: sparse sphere copies and generic curved bands omit most of the ordered mirror-room structure. Materials receive a small upward revision because bounded bright images and dark bands visibly establish some polish, while soft shading and bulky paint remain separate weaknesses.

Score breakdown

CategoryIceman ContributorKimi K3.1 Pro
State at 600 ms0.5/2523.5/25
Camera and placement2.5/1510.5/15
Reflections7.5/12026.0/120
Materials and scale3.0/107.0/10
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

Iceman Contributor

The crystal crown, cyan eyes and blue faceting communicate an icy fantasy character. Anatomical readability is substantially weaker: the ringed torso, crowded facial construction and fingerless appendages do not resolve the requested childlike crouch or pouncing gesture. Sparse surface detail and shallow shading further limit the result.

Kimi K3.1 Pro

The transformed reflection, attentive pose and constellation anatomy clearly communicate introspection. Purposeful fine details enrich a coherent composition. Tubular limbs, crowded lower-body overlaps, shallow depth and limited cast lighting keep the overall execution within the competent range.

Score breakdown

CategoryIceman ContributorKimi K3.1 Pro
Task & likeness4.0/108.0/10
Anatomy & construction3.0/105.5/10
Space & placement4.0/106.5/10
Light & reflections4.5/106.5/10
Purposeful detail4.0/107.5/10
Artistry & character4.5/107.0/10
Materials & effects4.5/107.0/10
Visual integrity4.0/107.0/10

Benchmark task

Iceman Contributor

Character scenes test expression, anatomy, materials and coherent visual construction.

Kimi K3.1 Pro

An imagined creature encounters its reflection. The scene tests original character design, visual self-interpretation and the relationship between a subject and its reflected image.

Mona Lisa

Different task instructions

Precise visual recall and portrait reconstruction.

The judgment

Iceman Contributor

The portrait retains a dark silhouette against an earthy landscape, but replication is weak. The frontal body, elongated facial proportions and undifferentiated hands lose the reference's defining pose and likeness. Basic gradients and layered hills provide some coherence, with little anatomical or painterly detail.

Kimi K3.1 Pro

A coherent, recognizable interpretation with controlled color and readable landscape layers. Replication is limited by the frontal seated construction, elongated facial proportions and oversized, weakly articulated hands. Smooth shading supplies some volume but little of the reference's subtle expression, fabric structure or atmospheric transitions.

Score breakdown

CategoryIceman ContributorKimi K3.1 Pro
Task & likeness1.5/105.0/10
Anatomy & construction1.5/105.0/10
Space & placement2.5/105.5/10
Light & reflections2.0/106.0/10
Purposeful detail2.0/105.5/10
Artistry & character2.0/106.0/10
Materials & effects2.0/105.0/10
Visual integrity3.0/106.5/10

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

Iceman Contributor

A coherent sunset beach with recognizable animals, playful details and effective palm framing. Connected silhouettes and layered scenery support modest construction and placement credit. Jointless figures, limited foreshortening and an inadequately separated sun and reflection keep the execution basic despite its attractive color.

Kimi K3.1 Pro

A coherent, playful beach illustration with readable animals, an organized composition and an aligned sunset reflection. Connected silhouettes, sand texture and atmospheric effects demonstrate controlled execution. Simplified joints, flattened foreground viewpoints and inconsistent shadows limit anatomical and spatial credibility.

Score breakdown

CategoryIceman ContributorKimi K3.1 Pro
Task & likeness7.0/108.5/10
Anatomy & construction3.5/105.5/10
Space & placement6.0/105.5/10
Light & reflections4.0/106.5/10
Purposeful detail5.5/106.5/10
Artistry & character3.5/105.5/10
Materials & effects4.5/106.5/10
Visual integrity5.0/107.5/10

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

Iceman Contributor

This benchmark has not been assessed yet.

Kimi K3.1 Pro

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

Iceman Contributor

The sunset palette and red hull establish an appealing setting, but the central interaction remains unresolved. Overlapping bodies obscure the dog, supported seating is unclear, and no readable paw-to-control grip demonstrates steering. Simple construction, weak environmental lighting and loosely described spray limit depth and finish.

Kimi K3.1 Pro

The additional comparisons support retaining the assessment. Readable steering, shaped animal contours and purposeful details coexist with simplified joints, a frontal passenger whose seated weight is weakly conveyed, and limited physical lighting. The angled craft establishes more depth than the riding pose resolves.

Score breakdown

CategoryIceman ContributorKimi K3.1 Pro
Task & likeness2.0/107.0/10
Anatomy & construction3.0/105.5/10
Space & placement3.0/106.0/10
Light & reflections4.0/105.5/10
Purposeful detail3.5/107.0/10
Artistry & character2.5/106.0/10
Materials & effects4.0/106.0/10
Visual integrity2.5/107.0/10

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

Iceman Contributor

A recognizable pelican and bicycle sit within an appealing sunset composition. Feather contours, bill shape and atmospheric colour provide character, but disconnected-looking leg origins, unclear pedal contact and unresolved steering weaken the central riding action. Consistent wheel alignment establishes a side view without resolving the rider's support.

Kimi K3.1 Pro

A characterful coastal illustration with controlled contours and varied feather, accessory and bicycle detail. Layered scenery and subtle shading enrich the presentation. Soft leg articulation, unresolved riding contacts, shallow depth and generalized lighting limit physical precision.

Score breakdown

CategoryIceman ContributorKimi K3.1 Pro
Task & likeness4.0/108.5/10
Anatomy & construction3.5/107.5/10
Space & placement3.5/106.5/10
Light & reflections5.0/106.5/10
Purposeful detail4.5/107.5/10
Artistry & character3.5/107.5/10
Materials & effects4.0/106.5/10
Visual integrity3.0/107.5/10

Benchmark task

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