STEALTHMARK · HEAD TO HEAD

All comparisons ↗

Ling 3.1 Flash vs Muse Spark Open

Muse Spark Open leads Ling 3.1 Flash by 1.9 points on StealthMark, 44.1 to 42.2. Ling 3.1 Flash leads on 5 of 9 benchmarks and Muse Spark Open on 4, including both games. Ling 3.1 Flash scores higher on Newton's Mirror, with its largest category advantage in reflections.

See the difference ↘
All results ↗
All results ↗

Overall StealthMark

42.2/100Overall rank 32/53
44.1/100Overall rank 29/53

General Intelligence

35.5/100
42.6/100

Visual Intelligence

51.2/100
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

Open modelMIT

BENCHMARK BY BENCHMARK

Where each model leads

  • Ling 3.1 Flash
  • Muse Spark Open
  • Other models
  • Median

DATASHEET

Specs and pricing

Ling 3.1 Flash is 4.7× cheaper per output token. Muse Spark Open scores higher on StealthMark, takes 4× more context and runs 3.1× faster in our speed test.

  • Ling 3.1 Flash
  • Muse Spark Open
  • Other models
  • Median
PricePer 1M output tokens, input below
Ling 3.1 Flash: $0.904.7× cheaper$0.30 inputMuse Spark Open: $4.25$1.25 input
Context windowTokens per request, max output below
Ling 3.1 Flash: 256KMuse Spark Open: 1M4× larger1M max output
Output speedTokens per second, our measurement
Ling 3.1 Flash: 115tokens/sMuse Spark Open: 3613.1× fastertokens/s
SizeTotal and active parameters
Ling 3.1 Flash: 560B25B activeMuse Spark Open: 816B42B active
Developer
InclusionAIMeta
Released
29 Sep 202615 Oct 2026
Origin
ChinaUnited States
Input → output
Text → textText, image, audio, video → text
Architecture
Hybrid-linear MoE; 72 layers (63 KDA, 9 gated MLA); 512 routed experts, 8 selected and 1 shared.Sparse 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 sourceLing 3.1 Flash ↗Muse 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.

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

Muse Spark Open 29.4/100Rank 34/47

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

Points per level

LevelLing 3.1 FlashMuse Spark Open
Level 1Second Thoughts
Pending
4 ptsOut of lives
Level 2Pressure Pot
6 ptsOut of lives
9 ptsOut of lives
Level 3Hide or Flight
Not played
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.

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

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

LevelLing 3.1 FlashMuse Spark Open
Level 1Hold the door
5.2 ptsCleared
5.2 ptsCleared
Level 2Crossfeed
9.4 ptsCleared
9.8 ptsCleared
Level 3Relay vault
Pending
19.2 ptsCleared
Level 4Passing bay
9.8 ptsFinished early
17.8 ptsClearedFinished early · 1 beacon left
Level 5Second thoughts
Not played
19.6 ptsCleared

Newton's Mirror

Same task instructions

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

The judgment

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.

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

CategoryLing 3.1 FlashMuse Spark Open
State at 600 ms22.0/2514.0/25
Camera and placement13.5/156.0/15
Reflections18.0/1208.0/120
Materials and scale7.0/103.5/10
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

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.

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

CategoryLing 3.1 FlashMuse Spark Open
Task & likeness7.5/105.0/10
Anatomy & construction7.5/104.5/10
Space & placement7.0/106.0/10
Light & reflections7.5/105.0/10
Purposeful detail7.0/106.0/10
Artistry & character7.0/105.0/10
Materials & effects6.5/105.0/10
Visual integrity8.0/106.5/10

Benchmark task

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.

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

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.

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

CategoryLing 3.1 FlashMuse Spark Open
Task & likeness2.0/103.0/10
Anatomy & construction1.5/103.0/10
Space & placement4.0/105.0/10
Light & reflections3.5/104.5/10
Purposeful detail3.5/104.0/10
Artistry & character2.0/103.0/10
Materials & effects1.5/104.0/10
Visual integrity2.0/106.0/10

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

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.

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

CategoryLing 3.1 FlashMuse Spark Open
Task & likeness7.5/108.0/10
Anatomy & construction6.0/106.0/10
Space & placement7.0/106.5/10
Light & reflections7.0/105.5/10
Purposeful detail6.5/106.5/10
Artistry & character6.5/105.5/10
Materials & effects6.5/106.0/10
Visual integrity6.0/108.0/10

Benchmark task

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

Ground Truth

Same task instructions

Physical reasoning, light and visual reconstruction.

The judgment

Ling 3.1 Flash

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

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.

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

CategoryLing 3.1 FlashMuse Spark Open
Task & likeness7.5/104.0/10
Anatomy & construction5.5/103.0/10
Space & placement7.0/106.0/10
Light & reflections7.0/104.5/10
Purposeful detail7.0/107.0/10
Artistry & character5.5/103.5/10
Materials & effects5.5/105.0/10
Visual integrity6.0/105.0/10

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

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.

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

CategoryLing 3.1 FlashMuse Spark Open
Task & likeness7.5/107.5/10
Anatomy & construction5.5/105.0/10
Space & placement7.0/106.0/10
Light & reflections6.5/105.0/10
Purposeful detail6.0/106.5/10
Artistry & character6.5/105.5/10
Materials & effects6.5/106.0/10
Visual integrity6.0/107.5/10

Benchmark task

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