STEALTHMARK · HEAD TO HEAD

All comparisons ↗

MISSINGNO. vs Qwen3.8 Max 0902

Qwen3.8 Max 0902 scores 18.2 points higher overall (56.2 vs 38.0). Qwen3.8 Max 0902 scores higher on Newton's Mirror, with its largest category advantage in state at 600 ms.

See the difference ↘
Model guide ↗
All results ↗

Overall StealthMark

38.0/100
56.2/100

General Intelligence

33.6/100
50.7/100

Visual Intelligence

43.3/100
62.8/100

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.

Qwen3.8 Max 090238.7/100

Qwen3.8 Max 0902: Newton's Mirror SVG benchmark
Researcher observations

The central sphere and differentiated cyan/crimson interaction are supported. The tiny highlighted object above the sphere provides partial airborne-black evidence. The few isolated sphere and panel images preserve limited optical relationships, but most of the repeating mirror-room structure is missing. Core score: 64.5/170; including the floor-damage reward: 64.5/180.

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.Qwen3.8 Max 0902
State at 600 ms11.5/2523.5/25
Camera and placement7.0/1511.0/15
Reflections12.0/12024.0/120
Materials and scale5.5/106.0/10
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.

Qwen3.8 Max 090270.6/100

Qwen3.8 Max 0902: Selfie SVG benchmark
Researcher observations

A coherent ornamental illustration with balanced framing, appealing color and legible magical accessories. The disconnected raised wrist, incorrect raised-arm side and palm orientation, bear-like facial proportions and shallow material modeling limit execution. Clean decoration and compact spatial balance remain strengths.

Benchmark task

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

Compare category scores
CategoryMISSINGNO.Qwen3.8 Max 0902
Task & likeness5.5/107.5/10
Anatomy & construction4.5/106.5/10
Space & placement6.0/108.0/10
Light & reflections5.5/107.0/10
Purposeful detail4.5/107.5/10
Artistry & character4.5/107.0/10
Materials & effects4.0/107.5/10
Visual integrity6.0/106.5/10

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.

Qwen3.8 Max 090245.1/100

Qwen3.8 Max 0902: Mona Lisa SVG benchmark
Researcher observations

A recognizable, cohesive Mona Lisa interpretation with readable landscape layers and a restrained expression. Continuous body construction and clean contours support readability, but broad hands, simplified drapery, frontal symmetry and limited facial volume keep the execution basic and uneven.

Benchmark task

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

Compare category scores
CategoryMISSINGNO.Qwen3.8 Max 0902
Task & likeness1.5/104.5/10
Anatomy & construction2.5/103.5/10
Space & placement2.5/105.0/10
Light & reflections3.0/105.0/10
Purposeful detail2.0/105.0/10
Artistry & character3.5/105.0/10
Materials & effects2.0/103.5/10
Visual integrity6.0/105.0/10

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.

Qwen3.8 Max 090277.7/100

Qwen3.8 Max 0902: Beach SVG benchmark
Researcher observations

A strong stylized beach illustration with coherent sunset color, lively dolphin arcs and balanced activity. Clean contours, readable ground contact and an aligned reflection support the finish. Schematic anatomy, sparse small-subject features, flat materials and repetitive water highlights limit physical depth and refinement.

Benchmark task

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

Compare category scores
CategoryMISSINGNO.Qwen3.8 Max 0902
Task & likeness7.0/108.5/10
Anatomy & construction4.0/107.5/10
Space & placement6.5/107.5/10
Light & reflections5.0/108.0/10
Purposeful detail3.0/107.0/10
Artistry & character3.0/108.0/10
Materials & effects5.0/106.5/10
Visual integrity3.5/108.5/10

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.

Qwen3.8 Max 090261.6/100

Qwen3.8 Max 0902: 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.

Qwen3.8 Max 090269.9/100

Qwen3.8 Max 0902: Raccoon SVG benchmark
Researcher observations

The riding arrangement and steering action are readable, supported by coherent visible attachments and useful character details. Clean shapes, strong color separation and clustered foam make the scene appealing and active. Stiff anatomy, crowded controls, limited directional lighting and simple surface treatments constrain sophistication.

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.Qwen3.8 Max 0902
Task & likeness8.0/108.0/10
Anatomy & construction5.0/107.0/10
Space & placement5.5/107.0/10
Light & reflections5.0/106.5/10
Purposeful detail6.0/107.0/10
Artistry & character5.0/106.5/10
Materials & effects4.5/106.0/10
Visual integrity7.0/107.5/10

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.

Qwen3.8 Max 090272.0/100

Qwen3.8 Max 0902: Pelican SVG benchmark
Researcher observations

An appealing graphic illustration with a recognizable pelican, readable bicycle and clean coastal composition. Steering contact and one connected pedal support the action. Ambiguous neck-to-torso construction, an unclear opposing pedal connection, shallow space and limited material and lighting effects constrain its execution.

Benchmark task

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

Compare category scores
CategoryMISSINGNO.Qwen3.8 Max 0902
Task & likeness7.0/108.5/10
Anatomy & construction5.5/106.5/10
Space & placement6.0/107.0/10
Light & reflections5.0/106.0/10
Purposeful detail5.5/107.5/10
Artistry & character6.0/107.5/10
Materials & effects4.5/106.0/10
Visual integrity6.5/108.0/10