STEALTHMARK · HEAD TO HEAD

All comparisons ↗

MiniMax M3.1 Flash vs Muse Spark 1.3

MiniMax M3.1 Flash leads Muse Spark 1.3 by 6.1 points on StealthMark, 45.9 to 39.8. It leads on 6 of 9 benchmarks and Muse Spark 1.3 on 3, including both games. MiniMax M3.1 Flash scores higher on Newton's Mirror, with its largest category advantage in reflections.

See the difference ↘
All results ↗
All results ↗

Overall StealthMark

45.9/100Overall rank 24/53
39.8/100Overall rank 34/53

General Intelligence

35.8/100
38.3/100

Visual Intelligence

62.6/100
42.3/100

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

  • MiniMax M3.1 Flash
  • Muse Spark 1.3
  • Other models
  • Median

DATASHEET

Specs and pricing

Both take about 1M tokens of context.

  • MiniMax M3.1 Flash
  • Muse Spark 1.3
  • Other models
  • Median
PricePer 1M output tokens, input below
MiniMax M3.1 Flash: No list priceMuse Spark 1.3: $4.25$1.25 input
Context windowTokens per request, max output below
MiniMax M3.1 Flash: 1MTiedMuse Spark 1.3: 1MTied
Output speedTokens per second, our measurement
MiniMax M3.1 Flash: Not measuredMuse Spark 1.3: 321tokens/s
SizeTotal and active parameters
MiniMax M3.1 Flash: 428B23B activeMuse Spark 1.3: Not disclosed
Developer
MiniMaxMeta
Released
Not published2 Sep 2026
Origin
Not publishedUnited States
Input → output
Text, image, video → textText, image, video, audio, PDF → text
Architecture
Mixture-of-Experts with MiniMax Sparse Attention and native multimodal encoderNot published

Full datasheets, every price and sourceMiniMax M3.1 Flash ↗Muse Spark 1.3 ↗

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.

MiniMax M3.1 Flash 30.7/100Rank 28/47

Survived 1 of 3
Foresight: complete playing field
Level 39 ptsTurn 20 / 20

Muse Spark 1.3 64.3/100Rank 6/47

Survived 2 of 3
Foresight: complete playing field
Level 311 ptsTurn 17 / 20

Points per level

LevelMiniMax M3.1 FlashMuse Spark 1.3
Level 1Second Thoughts
6 ptsOut of lives
26 ptsSurvived
Level 2Pressure Pot
5 ptsOut of lives
10 ptsSurvived
Level 3Hide or Flight
9 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.

MiniMax M3.1 Flash 21.9/100Rank 38/48

Cleared 2 of 5
Latch: complete playing field
Level 517.2 ptsTurn 24 / 40

Muse Spark 1.3 72.4/100Rank 26/483 of 5 levels

3 of 5 played
Latch: complete playing field
Level 318.8 ptsTurn 32 / 36

Points per level

LevelMiniMax M3.1 FlashMuse Spark 1.3
Level 1Hold the door
5.2 ptsCleared
5.2 ptsCleared
Level 2Crossfeed
8.6 ptsClearedFinished early · 1 beacon left
9.8 ptsCleared
Level 3Relay vault
5 ptsOut of turns
18.8 ptsCleared
Level 4Passing bay
4.4 ptsFinished early
Pending
Level 5Second thoughts
17.2 ptsFinished early
Not played

Newton's Mirror

Same task instructions

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

The judgment

MiniMax M3.1 Flash

The sphere placement, separate airborne black blob, recent cyan contact and elongated crimson aftermath support the required gross physical state. The reflection system remains severely incomplete: isolated side images, broad metallic bands and sparse light patches replace extensive mirror repetitions and curved nested imagery.

Muse Spark 1.3

The paint state is incorrectly and poorly drawn, despite a recognizable sphere-and-paint setup. The oversized sphere, oversized compact paint bodies, and blurred wall and floor images further limit the result. Isolated reflection cues provide very little support for the required repeated virtual rooms, nested spherical imagery or emitter mapping.

Score breakdown

CategoryMiniMax M3.1 FlashMuse Spark 1.3
State at 600 ms20.0/256.0/25
Camera and placement10.0/158.5/15
Reflections24.0/1205.5/120
Materials and scale8.0/104.0/10
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

MiniMax M3.1 Flash

The sculptural M, confident grin and miniature theatrical pose closely fulfill the brief. Controlled gradients and clean shapes give the character volume and appeal. Moderate drawing complexity, an apparently separated shoe and ambiguous grounding limit the finish.

Muse Spark 1.3

The luminous creature and geometric mirror counterpart communicate self-recognition through a coherent palette and expressive eyes. The transformed reflection is purposeful. Simple oval anatomy, ambiguous reaching-arm construction, shallow spatial staging and limited illumination of nearby surfaces keep the illustration below exceptional execution.

Score breakdown

CategoryMiniMax M3.1 FlashMuse Spark 1.3
Task & likeness7.5/108.0/10
Anatomy & construction6.0/105.0/10
Space & placement7.0/106.5/10
Light & reflections6.0/107.0/10
Purposeful detail5.0/106.5/10
Artistry & character6.0/105.5/10
Materials & effects7.0/106.5/10
Visual integrity6.0/107.5/10

Benchmark task

MiniMax M3.1 Flash

A small robot with an oversized angular head presents a glowing object. The scene tests character proportions, gesture and contrasting materials.

Muse Spark 1.3

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.

Mona Lisa

Different task instructions

Precise visual recall and portrait reconstruction.

The judgment

MiniMax M3.1 Flash

A coherent decorative portrait combines layered hair, garment contours, linked trim and atmospheric scenery. These provide meaningful drawing complexity, but likeness remains limited by the frontal elongated face and altered clothing. Compressed hands, abrupt facial shading and cluttered local edges leave the portrait uneven.

Muse Spark 1.3

Dark hair, a restrained smile and overlapping hands suggest Mona Lisa, but replication is weak. The face is markedly elongated, the hands are oval pads with faint finger strokes, and the atmospheric landscape is absent. Soft gradients provide basic volume, while the frontal symmetry, shallow space and sparse clothing detail limit the portrait’s drawing quality.

Score breakdown

CategoryMiniMax M3.1 FlashMuse Spark 1.3
Task & likeness4.0/101.0/10
Anatomy & construction4.5/101.5/10
Space & placement5.5/101.5/10
Light & reflections4.5/101.5/10
Purposeful detail5.5/101.0/10
Artistry & character6.0/101.5/10
Materials & effects5.5/101.5/10
Visual integrity5.5/103.0/10

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

MiniMax M3.1 Flash

A controlled, detailed beach illustration with expressive animals, coherent depth and accomplished foliage and accessory drawing. Its warm palette and varied contours sustain visual interest. Simplified anatomy and object volumes limit physical conviction, while reflection streaks crossing dry-looking sand and generic shadows weaken the lighting.

Muse Spark 1.3

The warm sunset, framing palms and colorful beach accessories create an appealing scene with the requested animals, birds and reflections. Construction remains schematic: the raised hand misses the kite string, and a doglike silhouette hangs above the water without clear support. The sun reflection establishes a focal path, but shadows and materials lack depth. An unexplained horizontal bar crosses the sun.

Score breakdown

CategoryMiniMax M3.1 FlashMuse Spark 1.3
Task & likeness8.5/106.5/10
Anatomy & construction7.0/103.0/10
Space & placement7.5/105.5/10
Light & reflections6.0/106.5/10
Purposeful detail8.0/105.0/10
Artistry & character6.5/103.5/10
Materials & effects6.5/103.0/10
Visual integrity7.5/103.5/10

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

MiniMax M3.1 Flash

This benchmark has not been assessed yet.

Muse Spark 1.3

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

MiniMax M3.1 Flash

An expressive, coherent cartoon clearly demonstrates the requested riding and steering relationship. Layered animal shapes, readable vehicle depth and purposeful facial details support its drawing quality. Ambiguous grips, sparse cast shadows and simplified material responses limit physical precision.

Muse Spark 1.3

The raccoon clearly rides on the dog's back, and the dog's paws reach the jet ski controls. Expressive faces and bright colors make the scene appealing. Simplified joints, crowded steering geometry and shallow hull perspective limit construction. The sun has no corresponding water reflection, and the splash shapes convey speed more clearly than convincing displacement.

Score breakdown

CategoryMiniMax M3.1 FlashMuse Spark 1.3
Task & likeness9.0/108.5/10
Anatomy & construction8.0/106.5/10
Space & placement8.0/107.0/10
Light & reflections6.0/105.0/10
Purposeful detail7.5/106.5/10
Artistry & character7.5/105.5/10
Materials & effects7.0/106.0/10
Visual integrity8.0/107.5/10

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

MiniMax M3.1 Flash

A controlled coastal illustration with a clear pelican silhouette, detailed wheels and accomplished feather and bill drawing. Continuous body construction and grounded wheels support the scene. Ambiguous leg, pedal and steering contacts weaken the riding mechanics; approximate directional lighting and simplified materials limit physical conviction.

Muse Spark 1.3

The pelican and bicycle are immediately recognizable, with an expressive face, bold bill and cheerful composition. Both legs connect to the body and reach pedal-like supports, but articulation, saddle support and wing contact with the handlebar remain unclear. Wheel alignment and layering are coherent. Simple landscape shapes, generic shadows and limited material variation constrain the finish.

Score breakdown

CategoryMiniMax M3.1 FlashMuse Spark 1.3
Task & likeness8.5/108.5/10
Anatomy & construction6.5/106.0/10
Space & placement8.0/107.0/10
Light & reflections7.0/106.0/10
Purposeful detail7.5/107.0/10
Artistry & character6.5/105.5/10
Materials & effects7.0/106.5/10
Visual integrity6.5/107.0/10

Benchmark task

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