STEALTHMARK · HEAD TO HEAD

All comparisons ↗

Iceman Contributor vs Ling 3.1 Flash

Ling 3.1 Flash leads Iceman Contributor by 23.0 points on StealthMark, 42.2 to 19.2. It leads on all 9 benchmarks. Ling 3.1 Flash 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
42.2/100Overall rank 32/53

General Intelligence

11.7/100
35.5/100

Visual Intelligence

31.0/100
51.2/100

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 modelMIT

BENCHMARK BY BENCHMARK

Where each model leads

  • Iceman Contributor
  • Ling 3.1 Flash
  • Other models
  • Median

DATASHEET

Specs and pricing

Ling 3.1 Flash scores higher on StealthMark and runs 2.5× faster in our speed test.

  • Iceman Contributor
  • Ling 3.1 Flash
  • Other models
  • Median
PricePer 1M output tokens, input below
Iceman Contributor: No list priceLing 3.1 Flash: $0.90$0.30 input
Context windowTokens per request, max output below
Iceman Contributor: Not publishedLing 3.1 Flash: 256K
Output speedTokens per second, our measurement
Iceman Contributor: 46tokens/sLing 3.1 Flash: 1152.5× fastertokens/s
SizeTotal and active parameters
Iceman Contributor: Not disclosedLing 3.1 Flash: 560B25B active
Developer
Not publishedInclusionAI
Released
Not published29 Sep 2026
Origin
Not publishedChina
Input → output
Not publishedText → text
Architecture
Not publishedHybrid-linear MoE; 72 layers (63 KDA, 9 gated MLA); 512 routed experts, 8 selected and 1 shared.

Full datasheets, every price and sourceLing 3.1 Flash ↗

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

Ling 3.1 Flash 43.1/100Rank 42/471 of 3 levels

1 of 3 played
Foresight: complete playing field
Level 26 ptsTurn 14 / 18

Points per level

LevelIceman ContributorLing 3.1 Flash
Level 1Second Thoughts
0 ptsOut of lives
Pending
Level 2Pressure Pot
3 ptsOut of lives
6 ptsOut of lives
Level 3Hide or Flight
1 ptsOut of lives
Not played

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

Ling 3.1 Flash 45.9/100Rank 36/483 of 5 levels

3 of 5 played
Latch: complete playing field
Level 49.8 ptsTurn 21 / 40

Points per level

LevelIceman ContributorLing 3.1 Flash
Level 1Hold the door
5.2 ptsCleared
5.2 ptsCleared
Level 2Crossfeed
2.8 ptsFinished early
9.4 ptsCleared
Level 3Relay vault
2.2 ptsFinished early
Pending
Level 4Passing bay
4 ptsFinished early
9.8 ptsFinished early
Level 5Second thoughts
5 ptsFinished early
Not played

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.

Ling 3.1 Flash

Central placement, separate airborne black paint and the elongated crimson coating earn substantial state and placement credit. Cyan contact remains unresolved. A few isolated sphere images provide limited optical evidence, while the defining repeated mirror structure is missing. Readable opaque metallic volume and restrained paint scale justify increased material credit. Core: 61.5/170; including the floor reward: 61.5/180.

Score breakdown

CategoryIceman ContributorLing 3.1 Flash
State at 600 ms0.5/2522.0/25
Camera and placement2.5/1513.5/15
Reflections7.5/12018.0/120
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.

Ling 3.1 Flash

An appealing, coherent storybook ant with a clear expression, complete silhouette and readable signal mechanism. Clean curves and warm accents support the composition, while simplified joints, schematic hardware, limited material differentiation and modest light interaction constrain its finish.

Score breakdown

CategoryIceman ContributorLing 3.1 Flash
Task & likeness4.0/107.5/10
Anatomy & construction3.0/107.5/10
Space & placement4.0/107.0/10
Light & reflections4.5/107.5/10
Purposeful detail4.0/107.0/10
Artistry & character4.5/107.0/10
Materials & effects4.5/106.5/10
Visual integrity4.0/108.0/10

Benchmark task

Iceman Contributor

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

Ling 3.1 Flash

An ant tending signals in a miniature workshop tests insect anatomy, purposeful gestures and the placement of small objects in a lit environment.

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.

Ling 3.1 Flash

A basic, uneven Mona Lisa interpretation with a clear facial focal point, articulated eyes and modest tonal volume. Weak likeness, oversized head proportions, unclear shoulders, curled bare arms and indistinct hands limit replication. The compressed composition and rectangular torso weaken an otherwise coherent earthy palette.

Score breakdown

CategoryIceman ContributorLing 3.1 Flash
Task & likeness1.5/102.0/10
Anatomy & construction1.5/101.5/10
Space & placement2.5/104.0/10
Light & reflections2.0/103.5/10
Purposeful detail2.0/103.5/10
Artistry & character2.0/102.0/10
Materials & effects2.0/101.5/10
Visual integrity3.0/102.0/10

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

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.

Ling 3.1 Flash

A coherent sunset illustration with harmonious color, clean silhouettes and readable beach details. Its calm composition works well, while playful activity is modest. Simplified animal anatomy, shallow shoreline layering, repetitive foliage and a geometric reflection limit drawing sophistication and naturalism.

Score breakdown

CategoryIceman ContributorLing 3.1 Flash
Task & likeness7.0/107.5/10
Anatomy & construction3.5/106.0/10
Space & placement6.0/107.0/10
Light & reflections4.0/107.0/10
Purposeful detail5.5/106.5/10
Artistry & character3.5/106.5/10
Materials & effects4.5/106.5/10
Visual integrity5.0/106.0/10

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

Iceman Contributor

This benchmark has not been assessed yet.

Ling 3.1 Flash

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.

Ling 3.1 Flash

An appealing sunset cartoon with recognizable animals, expressive faces and coherent landscape layers. The sky and warm water streaks provide its strongest rendering. Ambiguous seated support, stiff forelegs, a shallow hull and an unclear steering connection limit construction. Clean shapes and readable accessories add finish, while restrained spray and flat surfaces limit material and motion effects.

Score breakdown

CategoryIceman ContributorLing 3.1 Flash
Task & likeness2.0/107.5/10
Anatomy & construction3.0/105.5/10
Space & placement3.0/107.0/10
Light & reflections4.0/107.0/10
Purposeful detail3.5/107.0/10
Artistry & character2.5/105.5/10
Materials & effects4.0/105.5/10
Visual integrity2.5/106.0/10

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.

Ling 3.1 Flash

A clean, appealing pelican illustration with a readable bicycle and coherent landscape. Bill shading, feather layers and faint wheel shadows provide modest depth. Uncertain pedal contact, simplified leg construction and limited material rendering keep the result within competent illustration quality.

Score breakdown

CategoryIceman ContributorLing 3.1 Flash
Task & likeness4.0/107.5/10
Anatomy & construction3.5/105.5/10
Space & placement3.5/107.0/10
Light & reflections5.0/106.5/10
Purposeful detail4.5/106.0/10
Artistry & character3.5/106.5/10
Materials & effects4.0/106.5/10
Visual integrity3.0/106.0/10

Benchmark task

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