STEALTHMARK · HEAD TO HEAD

All comparisons ↗

MISSINGNO. vs Qwen3.6 35B A3B

MISSINGNO. scores 13.5 points higher overall (38.0 vs 24.5). MISSINGNO. scores higher on Ground Truth.

See the difference ↘
Model guide ↗
All results ↗

Overall StealthMark

38.0/100
24.5/100

General Intelligence

33.6/100
14.5/100

Visual Intelligence

43.3/100
36.4/100

Newton's Mirror

Same task instructions

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

MISSINGNO.24.1/100

MISSINGNO.: Newton's Mirror SVG benchmark
Researcher observations

The centered sphere, separate airborne black blob and cyan-above-crimson ordering provide limited valid structure. The colored beads do not establish the required impact and transport histories. One dim floor image supports a small part of the optical system, while the defining wall repetitions, nested sphere imagery and emitter mappings are missing. Rounded volume and some gloss earn material credit, tempered by soft surface appearance and excessive paint-bead scale.

Benchmark task

A spinning metal sphere and paint in a mirrored room test physical reasoning, perspective and consistency across repeated reflections.

Qwen3.6 35B A3B13.3/100

Qwen3.6 35B A3B: Newton's Mirror SVG benchmark
Researcher observations

The artwork demonstrates rounded volume, recognizable paint colors and a compact black feature at an appropriate screen height. The enlarged main-sphere framing, unsupported crimson and cyan interaction histories, oversized compact paint balls and largely missing mirror structure remain substantial weaknesses. The core assessment is 20/170; with no demonstrated floor damage, the combined assessment remains 20/180.

Benchmark task

A spinning metal sphere and paint in a mirrored room test physical reasoning, perspective and consistency across repeated reflections.

Compare category scores
CategoryMISSINGNO.Qwen3.6 35B A3B
State at 600 ms11.5/258.0/25
Camera and placement7.0/154.0/15
Reflections12.0/1205.0/120
Materials and scale5.5/103.0/10
Floor-damage reward0.0/100.0/10

Selfie

Different task instructions

MISSINGNO.49.7/100

MISSINGNO.: Selfie SVG benchmark
Researcher observations

An appealing purple character with a readable pleased expression and raised-moustache joke. Smooth shading and clean contours support the simple design, but indistinct mitten grips, minimally textured curls and an uncompressed strap weaken the requested physical interaction. The jelly suggests gloss more convincingly than translucency.

Benchmark task

A glossy purple jelly struggles with an oversized fake moustache at a playful checkpoint. The scene tests comic expression, physical contact and the appearance of a soft translucent body.

Qwen3.6 35B A3B63.5/100

Qwen3.6 35B A3B: Selfie SVG benchmark
Researcher observations

An appealing fantasy illustration with coordinated ornament, readable suspension and luminous turquoise accents. Plausible limb attachments and soft shading support competent execution. Bear-like proportions, unclear paw gestures, insufficient white robe fabric, crowded chest details and shallow material modeling limit its finish.

Benchmark task

A floating capybara in ornate robes tests character anatomy, layered fabric and the placement of surrounding luminous forms.

Compare category scores
CategoryMISSINGNO.Qwen3.6 35B A3B
Task & likeness5.5/106.0/10
Anatomy & construction4.5/106.0/10
Space & placement6.0/106.5/10
Light & reflections5.5/107.0/10
Purposeful detail4.5/106.5/10
Artistry & character4.5/106.0/10
Materials & effects4.0/105.5/10
Visual integrity6.0/107.5/10

Mona Lisa

Different task instructions

MISSINGNO.28.1/100

MISSINGNO.: Mona Lisa SVG benchmark
Researcher observations

Clean contours, connected body forms and gentle gradients support a basic, coherent portrait. Likeness remains weak: the face dominates the body, the seated angle is lost, and crossed hands become dark lobes without traceable wrists or fingers. Readable facial details add some drawing complexity, but clothing, landscape and material treatment remain sparse.

Benchmark task

An SVG interpretation of the Mona Lisa tests facial likeness, anatomy and the composition of a familiar portrait.

Qwen3.6 35B A3B13.8/100

Qwen3.6 35B A3B: Mona Lisa SVG benchmark
Researcher observations

A recognizable but basic geometric interpretation. Muted colors and soft shading provide cohesion, while weak likeness, unresolved hands, rigid anatomy and shallow landscape construction substantially limit the replication.

Benchmark task

An SVG interpretation of the Mona Lisa tests facial likeness, anatomy and the composition of a familiar portrait.

Compare category scores
CategoryMISSINGNO.Qwen3.6 35B A3B
Task & likeness1.5/102.0/10
Anatomy & construction2.5/101.0/10
Space & placement2.5/102.0/10
Light & reflections3.0/100.5/10
Purposeful detail2.0/101.5/10
Artistry & character3.5/101.5/10
Materials & effects2.0/101.5/10
Visual integrity6.0/102.0/10

Beach

Different task instructions

MISSINGNO.43.9/100

MISSINGNO.: Beach SVG benchmark
Researcher observations

A coherent sunset beach with clear requested subjects, balanced framing and clean shapes. The aligned solar reflection and warm gradients establish atmosphere. Primitive animal construction, ambiguous furniture, sparse depth cues and minimally developed surfaces limit its drawing complexity and physical richness.

Benchmark task

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

Qwen3.6 35B A3B50.7/100

Qwen3.6 35B A3B: Beach SVG benchmark
Researcher observations

A recognizable beach sunset with balanced framing and appealing color transitions. Birds, boats and small animals fulfill the main scene requirements. Elementary anatomy, faint details, weak grounding and rigid reflection columns limit depth and finish.

Benchmark task

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

Compare category scores
CategoryMISSINGNO.Qwen3.6 35B A3B
Task & likeness7.0/107.5/10
Anatomy & construction4.0/104.5/10
Space & placement6.5/105.5/10
Light & reflections5.0/104.5/10
Purposeful detail3.0/104.5/10
Artistry & character3.0/104.5/10
Materials & effects5.0/105.5/10
Visual integrity3.5/105.0/10

Ground Truth

Same task instructions

MISSINGNO.44.1/100

MISSINGNO.: Ground Truth SVG benchmark
Benchmark task

A plank, computer mouse and blueberry in a steel room test physical stability, spatial relationships, materials and lighting.

Qwen3.6 35B A3B10.9/100

Qwen3.6 35B A3B: Ground Truth SVG benchmark
Benchmark task

A plank, computer mouse and blueberry in a steel room test physical stability, spatial relationships, materials and lighting.

Raccoon

Different task instructions

MISSINGNO.57.5/100

MISSINGNO.: Raccoon SVG benchmark
Researcher observations

The requested interaction reads clearly through recognizable animals, expressive faces and a coherent hull-water relationship. Clean curves and readable accessories give the cartoon polish. Partly unresolved grips and supporting contacts limit physical construction; modest shape complexity, weak directional lighting and schematic water constrain its finish.

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.

Qwen3.6 35B A3B43.6/100

Qwen3.6 35B A3B: Raccoon SVG benchmark
Researcher observations

Clean shapes, cheerful faces and bright colors make the riding arrangement readable. The dog does not visibly operate the control, while awkward limbs, shallow hull placement and stiff poses limit credibility. Gradients and layered foam add modest volume and motion. The obscured tail attachment does not establish detachment.

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.

Compare category scores
CategoryMISSINGNO.Qwen3.6 35B A3B
Task & likeness8.0/105.5/10
Anatomy & construction5.0/103.5/10
Space & placement5.5/105.5/10
Light & reflections5.0/104.0/10
Purposeful detail6.0/104.0/10
Artistry & character5.0/104.0/10
Materials & effects4.5/104.0/10
Visual integrity7.0/106.0/10

Pelican

Different task instructions

MISSINGNO.58.8/100

MISSINGNO.: Pelican SVG benchmark
Researcher observations

A coherent, cheerful illustration with recognizable pelican features, balanced composition, clean contours and useful small details. Its controlled curves and layered wheels demonstrate competent drawing skill. Ambiguous pedal and steering contacts, sparse drivetrain construction and weak directional lighting limit the riding mechanics and finish.

Benchmark task

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

Qwen3.6 35B A3B53.8/100

Qwen3.6 35B A3B: Pelican SVG benchmark
Researcher observations

A cheerful, readable illustration with a distinctive pelican silhouette, clean contours and an orderly landscape. Soft glow and restrained shading provide modest atmosphere. Construction is weaker: the handlebar is disconnected, wings do not reach the controls, and overlapping legs leave pedaling ambiguous. Simple forms and mostly flat materials limit depth and drawing sophistication.

Benchmark task

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

Compare category scores
CategoryMISSINGNO.Qwen3.6 35B A3B
Task & likeness7.0/107.0/10
Anatomy & construction5.5/103.5/10
Space & placement6.0/106.0/10
Light & reflections5.0/105.5/10
Purposeful detail5.5/107.0/10
Artistry & character6.0/105.0/10
Materials & effects4.5/105.5/10
Visual integrity6.5/104.5/10