STEALTHMARK · HEAD TO HEAD

All comparisons ↗

Kimi K3.1 Pro vs Muse Wonder

Muse Wonder leads Kimi K3.1 Pro by 0.6 points on StealthMark, 57.3 to 56.7. It leads on 5 of 9 benchmarks and Kimi K3.1 Pro on 4, including both games. Muse Wonder scores higher on Ground Truth.

See the difference ↘
All results ↗
All results ↗

Overall StealthMark

56.7/100Overall rank 11/53
57.3/100Overall rank 10/53

General Intelligence

53.9/100
53.2/100

Visual Intelligence

62.0/100
64.9/100

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

  • Kimi K3.1 Pro
  • Muse Wonder
  • Other models
  • Median

DATASHEET

Specs and pricing

Kimi K3.1 Pro is 2× cheaper per output token. Muse Wonder scores higher on StealthMark and runs 4.9× faster in our speed test. Both take about 1M tokens of context.

  • Kimi K3.1 Pro
  • Muse Wonder
  • Other models
  • Median
PricePer 1M output tokens, input below
Kimi K3.1 Pro: $102× cheaper$2 inputMuse Wonder: $20$4 input
Context windowTokens per request, max output below
Kimi K3.1 Pro: 1MTied1M max outputMuse Wonder: 1MTied
Output speedTokens per second, our measurement
Kimi K3.1 Pro: 117tokens/sMuse Wonder: 5704.9× fastertokens/s
SizeTotal and active parameters
Kimi K3.1 Pro: 2.8T104B activeEstimatedMuse Wonder: Not disclosed
Developer
Moonshot AIMeta
Released
23 Oct 202612 Oct 2026
Origin
ChinaUnited States
Input → output
Text, image, video → textText, image, video, audio, PDF → text
Architecture
Post-trained version of Kimi K3, a Mixture-of-Experts modelNot published

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

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.

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

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

Muse Wonder 52.3/100Rank 17/47

Survived 0 of 3
Foresight: complete playing field
Level 311 ptsTurn 17 / 20

Points per level

LevelKimi K3.1 ProMuse Wonder
Level 1Second Thoughts
15 ptsOut of lives
16 ptsOut of lives
Level 2Pressure Pot
12 ptsOut of lives
10 ptsOut of lives
Level 3Hide or Flight
15 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.

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

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

Muse Wonder 67.0/100Rank 17/48

Cleared 5 of 5
Latch: complete playing field
Level 520.6 ptsTurn 27 / 40

Points per level

LevelKimi K3.1 ProMuse Wonder
Level 1Hold the door
5.2 ptsCleared
5.2 ptsCleared
Level 2Crossfeed
9.8 ptsCleared
9 ptsCleared
Level 3Relay vault
19.2 ptsCleared
18.8 ptsCleared
Level 4Passing bay
18.2 ptsClearedFinished early · 3 beacons left
17.8 ptsClearedFinished early · 1 beacon left
Level 5Second thoughts
19.8 ptsCleared
20.6 ptsCleared

Newton's Mirror

Same task instructions

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

The judgment

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.

Muse Wonder

The flattened cyan cap, separate airborne black blob and crimson droplets support much of the contact sequence, although crimson adhesion and forward carriage remain unresolved. Main-sphere placement is broadly compatible with the prescribed view. Sparse isolated mirror images replace the defining repeated room structure and curved nested reflections. The crimson mass is visibly oversized, and the top-center lamp image is missing.

Score breakdown

CategoryKimi K3.1 ProMuse Wonder
State at 600 ms23.5/2522.0/25
Camera and placement10.5/1512.0/15
Reflections26.0/12021.5/120
Materials and scale7.0/107.5/10
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

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.

Muse Wonder

An appealing, coherent cartoon with a readable effortful expression and clear forefeet gripping the trunk. Soft colours and controlled contours support its tenderness. Smooth ears, stiff foreleg construction, limited surface texture and uncertain seed contact keep the execution below intricate illustration quality.

Score breakdown

CategoryKimi K3.1 ProMuse Wonder
Task & likeness8.0/107.5/10
Anatomy & construction5.5/107.0/10
Space & placement6.5/107.5/10
Light & reflections6.5/107.0/10
Purposeful detail7.5/107.5/10
Artistry & character7.0/106.5/10
Materials & effects7.0/106.5/10
Visual integrity7.0/108.0/10

Benchmark task

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.

Muse Wonder

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

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.

Muse Wonder

A competent illustrative interpretation with controlled curves, readable details and coherent depth layers. Facial, hair and garment shading demonstrate more development than basic construction. Replication remains limited by the frontal pose, elongated face and pronounced smile; crowded fingers, weak contact shadows and smooth materials constrain anatomical and painterly conviction.

Score breakdown

CategoryKimi K3.1 ProMuse Wonder
Task & likeness5.0/105.5/10
Anatomy & construction5.0/105.5/10
Space & placement5.5/105.5/10
Light & reflections6.0/105.5/10
Purposeful detail5.5/105.5/10
Artistry & character6.0/105.5/10
Materials & effects5.0/105.0/10
Visual integrity6.5/106.5/10

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

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.

Muse Wonder

A lively beach illustration with expressive animals, controlled colour transitions and unusually readable accessories. Connected graphic forms make the activities recognizable. Crowded overlaps, compressed depth, schematic joints, weak directional shadows and limited material variation constrain its physical coherence and refinement.

Score breakdown

CategoryKimi K3.1 ProMuse Wonder
Task & likeness8.5/108.5/10
Anatomy & construction5.5/106.0/10
Space & placement5.5/106.5/10
Light & reflections6.5/106.5/10
Purposeful detail6.5/109.0/10
Artistry & character5.5/107.0/10
Materials & effects6.5/106.0/10
Visual integrity7.5/107.0/10

Benchmark task

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

Ground Truth

Same task instructions

Physical reasoning, light and visual reconstruction.

The judgment

Kimi K3.1 Pro

This benchmark has not been assessed yet.

Muse Wonder

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

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.

Muse Wonder

An expressive, coherent cartoon demonstrates the requested riding and steering interaction. Clean contours, differentiated accessories and energetic spray support its appeal. Concealed seated contacts, compressed vehicle perspective and weak directional lighting limit physical resolution despite the detailed presentation.

Score breakdown

CategoryKimi K3.1 ProMuse Wonder
Task & likeness7.0/108.0/10
Anatomy & construction5.5/106.5/10
Space & placement6.0/106.5/10
Light & reflections5.5/104.5/10
Purposeful detail7.0/107.5/10
Artistry & character6.0/106.5/10
Materials & effects6.0/107.0/10
Visual integrity7.0/107.0/10

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

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.

Muse Wonder

A controlled, expressive seaside illustration with a distinctive pelican, coherent bicycle geometry and successfully resolved graphic detail. Visible pedal support and plausible occlusion strengthen the riding construction. Aligned wheels and layered scenery establish placement. Limited cast shadows, simplified leg articulation and restrained material modeling constrain its physical finish.

Score breakdown

CategoryKimi K3.1 ProMuse Wonder
Task & likeness8.5/108.5/10
Anatomy & construction7.5/106.0/10
Space & placement6.5/107.5/10
Light & reflections6.5/105.5/10
Purposeful detail7.5/108.5/10
Artistry & character7.5/107.5/10
Materials & effects6.5/106.0/10
Visual integrity7.5/108.0/10

Benchmark task

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