STEALTHMARK · HEAD TO HEAD

All comparisons ↗

Ling 3.1 Flash vs Muse Wonder

Muse Wonder leads Ling 3.1 Flash by 14.8 points on StealthMark, 57.0 to 42.2. It leads on 7 of 9 benchmarks, including both games, and Ling 3.1 Flash on 2. Muse Wonder scores higher on Ground Truth.

See the difference ↘
All results ↗
All results ↗

Overall StealthMark

42.2/100Overall rank 32/53
57.0/100Overall rank 10/53

General Intelligence

35.5/100
53.1/100

Visual Intelligence

51.2/100
64.0/100

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

Open or local

Open modelMIT

BENCHMARK BY BENCHMARK

Where each model leads

  • Ling 3.1 Flash
  • Muse Wonder
  • Other models
  • Median

DATASHEET

Specs and pricing

Ling 3.1 Flash is 22× cheaper per output token. Muse Wonder scores higher on StealthMark, takes 4× more context and runs 5× faster in our speed test.

  • Ling 3.1 Flash
  • Muse Wonder
  • Other models
  • Median
PricePer 1M output tokens, input below
Ling 3.1 Flash: $0.9022× cheaper$0.30 inputMuse Wonder: $20$4 input
Context windowTokens per request, max output below
Ling 3.1 Flash: 256KMuse Wonder: 1M4× larger
Output speedTokens per second, our measurement
Ling 3.1 Flash: 115tokens/sMuse Wonder: 5705× fastertokens/s
SizeTotal and active parameters
Ling 3.1 Flash: 560B25B activeMuse Wonder: Not disclosed
Developer
InclusionAIMeta
Released
29 Sep 202612 Oct 2026
Origin
ChinaUnited States
Input → output
Text → textText, image, video, audio, PDF → text
Architecture
Hybrid-linear MoE; 72 layers (63 KDA, 9 gated MLA); 512 routed experts, 8 selected and 1 shared.Not published

Full datasheets, every price and sourceLing 3.1 Flash ↗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.

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 Wonder 52.3/100Rank 17/47

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

Points per level

LevelLing 3.1 FlashMuse Wonder
Level 1Second Thoughts
Pending
16 ptsOut of lives
Level 2Pressure Pot
6 ptsOut of lives
10 ptsOut of lives
Level 3Hide or Flight
Not played
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.

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 Wonder 67.0/100Rank 17/48

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

Points per level

LevelLing 3.1 FlashMuse Wonder
Level 1Hold the door
5.2 ptsCleared
5.2 ptsCleared
Level 2Crossfeed
9.4 ptsCleared
9 ptsCleared
Level 3Relay vault
Pending
18.8 ptsCleared
Level 4Passing bay
9.8 ptsFinished early
17.8 ptsClearedFinished early · 1 beacon left
Level 5Second thoughts
Not played
20.6 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 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

CategoryLing 3.1 FlashMuse Wonder
State at 600 ms22.0/2522.0/25
Camera and placement13.5/1512.0/15
Reflections18.0/12021.5/120
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

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 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

CategoryLing 3.1 FlashMuse Wonder
Task & likeness7.5/107.5/10
Anatomy & construction7.5/107.0/10
Space & placement7.0/107.5/10
Light & reflections7.5/107.0/10
Purposeful detail7.0/107.5/10
Artistry & character7.0/106.5/10
Materials & effects6.5/106.5/10
Visual integrity8.0/108.0/10

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 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

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 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

CategoryLing 3.1 FlashMuse Wonder
Task & likeness2.0/105.5/10
Anatomy & construction1.5/105.5/10
Space & placement4.0/105.5/10
Light & reflections3.5/105.5/10
Purposeful detail3.5/105.5/10
Artistry & character2.0/105.5/10
Materials & effects1.5/105.0/10
Visual integrity2.0/106.5/10

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

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 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

CategoryLing 3.1 FlashMuse Wonder
Task & likeness7.5/108.5/10
Anatomy & construction6.0/106.0/10
Space & placement7.0/106.5/10
Light & reflections7.0/106.5/10
Purposeful detail6.5/109.0/10
Artistry & character6.5/107.0/10
Materials & effects6.5/106.0/10
Visual integrity6.0/107.0/10

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

Ling 3.1 Flash

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

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 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

CategoryLing 3.1 FlashMuse Wonder
Task & likeness7.5/107.5/10
Anatomy & construction5.5/105.5/10
Space & placement7.0/106.5/10
Light & reflections7.0/104.5/10
Purposeful detail7.0/107.5/10
Artistry & character5.5/105.5/10
Materials & effects5.5/107.0/10
Visual integrity6.0/107.0/10

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

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 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

CategoryLing 3.1 FlashMuse Wonder
Task & likeness7.5/108.5/10
Anatomy & construction5.5/106.0/10
Space & placement7.0/107.5/10
Light & reflections6.5/105.5/10
Purposeful detail6.0/108.5/10
Artistry & character6.5/107.5/10
Materials & effects6.5/106.0/10
Visual integrity6.0/108.0/10

Benchmark task

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