STEALTHMARK · HEAD TO HEAD

All comparisons ↗

Iceman Contributor vs Muse Spark Open

Muse Spark Open leads Iceman Contributor by 24.9 points on StealthMark, 44.1 to 19.2. It leads on all 9 benchmarks. Muse Spark Open 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
44.1/100Overall rank 29/53

General Intelligence

11.7/100
42.6/100

Visual Intelligence

31.0/100
46.6/100

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

  • Muse Spark Open

Open or local

BENCHMARK BY BENCHMARK

Where each model leads

  • Iceman Contributor
  • Muse Spark Open
  • Other models
  • Median

DATASHEET

Specs and pricing

Muse Spark Open scores higher on StealthMark and runs 7.8× faster in our speed test.

  • Iceman Contributor
  • Muse Spark Open
  • Other models
  • Median
PricePer 1M output tokens, input below
Iceman Contributor: No list priceMuse Spark Open: $4.25$1.25 input
Context windowTokens per request, max output below
Iceman Contributor: Not publishedMuse Spark Open: 1M1M max output
Output speedTokens per second, our measurement
Iceman Contributor: 46tokens/sMuse Spark Open: 3617.8× fastertokens/s
SizeTotal and active parameters
Iceman Contributor: Not disclosedMuse Spark Open: 816B42B active
Developer
Not publishedMeta
Released
Not published15 Oct 2026
Origin
Not publishedUnited States
Input → output
Not publishedText, image, audio, video → text
Architecture
Not publishedSparse mixture-of-experts Transformer with perception encoders; 62 decoder layers, 256 experts with 8 selected per token, grouped-query attention and sliding-window/full-attention layers.

Full datasheets, every price and sourceMuse Spark Open ↗

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

Muse Spark Open 29.4/100Rank 34/47

Survived 0 of 3
Foresight: complete playing field
Level 38 ptsTurn 15 / 20

Points per level

LevelIceman ContributorMuse Spark Open
Level 1Second Thoughts
0 ptsOut of lives
4 ptsOut of lives
Level 2Pressure Pot
3 ptsOut of lives
9 ptsOut of lives
Level 3Hide or Flight
1 ptsOut of lives
8 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.

Iceman Contributor 3.6/100Rank 44/48

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

Muse Spark Open 75.7/100Rank 12/48

Cleared 5 of 5
Latch: complete playing field
Level 519.6 ptsTurn 32 / 40

Points per level

LevelIceman ContributorMuse Spark Open
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
17.8 ptsClearedFinished early · 1 beacon left
Level 5Second thoughts
5 ptsFinished early
19.6 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.

Muse Spark Open

The airborne black blob and deformed paint support the broad contact sequence, although cyan attachment and wheel-directed transport remain partial. The sphere and black blob have substantial framing errors. The dominant limitation is the largely absent mirror system: faint wall circles and isolated highlights provide little evidence of recursive room geometry or curved nested reflections. Oversized compact paint features and diffuse material treatment further limit credit.

Score breakdown

CategoryIceman ContributorMuse Spark Open
State at 600 ms0.5/2514.0/25
Camera and placement2.5/156.0/15
Reflections7.5/1208.0/120
Materials and scale3.0/103.5/10
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

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.

Muse Spark Open

The rounded silhouette and asymmetric expression make an appealing baby elephant, supported by a quiet background and grounding shadow. The protective action remains difficult to read: forefeet cannot be confidently traced into a grip, and seed contact is crowded by fine lines. Controlled simple shapes provide charm, but limited anatomical clarity, shading and surface detail leave the execution uneven.

Score breakdown

CategoryIceman ContributorMuse Spark Open
Task & likeness4.0/105.0/10
Anatomy & construction3.0/104.5/10
Space & placement4.0/106.0/10
Light & reflections4.5/105.0/10
Purposeful detail4.0/106.0/10
Artistry & character4.5/105.0/10
Materials & effects4.5/105.0/10
Visual integrity4.0/106.5/10

Benchmark task

Iceman Contributor

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

Muse Spark Open

A small elephant protecting a delicate seed tests expressive anatomy, physical contact and contrasting organic materials.

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.

Muse Spark Open

A recognizable, orderly interpretation with clean major contours, connected body forms and modest facial shading. Wide eyes, frontal symmetry and schematic hands limit likeness and expression. Layered scenery establishes basic depth, but shallow arm overlaps, flat clothing and sparse fine detail keep the execution basic and uneven.

Score breakdown

CategoryIceman ContributorMuse Spark Open
Task & likeness1.5/103.0/10
Anatomy & construction1.5/103.0/10
Space & placement2.5/105.0/10
Light & reflections2.0/104.5/10
Purposeful detail2.0/104.0/10
Artistry & character2.0/103.0/10
Materials & effects2.0/104.0/10
Visual integrity3.0/106.0/10

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.

Muse Spark Open

A coherent sunset beach with readable activities, balanced framing and controlled colour transitions. Small accessories add interest, but schematic anatomy, limited surface detail, weak directional shadows and a geometric reflection constrain its finish. Most shapes and overlaps remain clean.

Score breakdown

CategoryIceman ContributorMuse Spark Open
Task & likeness7.0/108.0/10
Anatomy & construction3.5/106.0/10
Space & placement6.0/106.5/10
Light & reflections4.0/105.5/10
Purposeful detail5.5/106.5/10
Artistry & character3.5/105.5/10
Materials & effects4.5/106.0/10
Visual integrity5.0/108.0/10

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.

Muse Spark Open

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.

Muse Spark Open

Expressive faces, distinct accessories and clean color separation make the scene appealing and recognizable. Character detail is stronger than the functional construction: steering contact, limb overlaps and seating remain ambiguous. The readable hull and lively spray establish motion, while limited directional shading and simplified surfaces constrain depth and physical coherence.

Score breakdown

CategoryIceman ContributorMuse Spark Open
Task & likeness2.0/104.0/10
Anatomy & construction3.0/103.0/10
Space & placement3.0/106.0/10
Light & reflections4.0/104.5/10
Purposeful detail3.5/107.0/10
Artistry & character2.5/103.5/10
Materials & effects4.0/105.0/10
Visual integrity2.5/105.0/10

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.

Muse Spark Open

A controlled, appealing cartoon with a recognizable pelican, expressive face and clean curved forms. Feather lines, spokes and bill shading provide useful complexity. Aligned wheels and a ground shadow establish placement, but uncertain pedal contacts and obscured mechanical connections weaken support and riding action. Lighting remains loosely coordinated with the sun.

Score breakdown

CategoryIceman ContributorMuse Spark Open
Task & likeness4.0/107.5/10
Anatomy & construction3.5/105.0/10
Space & placement3.5/106.0/10
Light & reflections5.0/105.0/10
Purposeful detail4.5/106.5/10
Artistry & character3.5/105.5/10
Materials & effects4.0/106.0/10
Visual integrity3.0/107.5/10

Benchmark task

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