Data as of October 29, 2026 · How the score is built
Beam 1.0 501B-A23B
Decision readingBeam 1.0 501B-A23B scores 43.1 out of 100 and ranks #130 of 216. This profile shows 19 source-displayable benchmark rows; its strongest eligible category is Agentic at #65. No comparable first-party API price is published in the catalog.
Released Oct 16, 2026 — see all recent releases
Decision snapshot
Each value carries a field reference instead of floating alone. Markers compare this model with the current ranked and priced catalog; they are not absolute quality thresholds.
Capability
43.1/100
field median 50.5#130 of 216 ranked models
Public
#130of 216
Verified —
Price
API rate not published
input median $0.75No comparable first-party hosted token rate
Speed
345tok/s
field median 92 tok/sFirst token 6.36 s
Context
1Mtokens
field median 256,000Maximum output length is tracked separately
Strongest published evidence
Agentic ranks #65. Particularly useful for coding agents, browser research, and computer-use workflows.
Validate before choosing
19 published rows leave some tracked benchmark slots empty. No comparable first-party API token rate is published.
Source-linked · 19 displayable benchmark rows
Category score record
Scores and ranks appear only where published evidence can be displayed. The table keeps the score, weight, cohort, and evidence state together.
| Category | Score | Rank | Percentile | Weight | Benchmarks | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AgenticRank #65 of 135Percentile 52ndWeight 22%6 benchmarksVerified | 44.8 | 6 benchmarks | Verified | |||
| CodingRank #106 of 156Percentile 32ndWeight 20%7 benchmarksVerified | 28.7 | 7 benchmarks | Verified | |||
| ReasoningRank Not rankedWeight 17%2 benchmarksVerified | 78.7 | 2 benchmarks | Verified | |||
| MultimodalWeight 12%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | 0 benchmarks | Not measured | |||
| KnowledgeRank #86 of 179Percentile 52ndWeight 12%2 benchmarksVerified | 48.1 | 2 benchmarks | Verified | |||
| MultilingualWeight 7%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | 0 benchmarks | Not measured | |||
| Inst. FollowingRank Not rankedWeight 5%1 benchmarkVerified | 87.2 | 1 benchmark | Verified | |||
| MathRank Not rankedWeight 5%1 benchmarkVerified | 87.9 | 1 benchmark | Verified |
19 of 784 tracked benchmark slots have displayable evidence · bars run 0–100
Coverage detailsHow much of this is verified
Coverage is split by category so a strong number never hides a thin evidence base. Verified means the row is tied to a published source; provisional rows remain visible but separate.
- Agentic6/6 verified
- Coding7/7 verified
- Reasoning2/2 verified
- MultimodalNot measured
- Knowledge2/2 verified
- MultilingualNot measured
- Inst. Following1/1 verified
- Math1/1 verified
Capability shape
Each axis shows percentile within that category’s eligible cohort. The comparison outline is the median of the six nearest public-score peers; a collapsed vertex means the category is not rank-eligible.
Beam 1.0 501B-A23B category percentile values
- Agentic52nd percentile
- Coding32nd percentile
- ReasoningNot eligible
- MultimodalNot eligible
- Knowledge52nd percentile
- MultilingualNot eligible
- Instruction followingNot eligible
- MathNot eligible
The dashed outline is median of 6 nearest peers.
Eligible category ranks
- Agentic#65/135
- Coding#106/156
- ReasoningNot ranked
- MultimodalNot ranked
- Knowledge#86/179
- MultilingualNot ranked
- Inst. FollowingNot ranked
- MathNot ranked
Benchmark ledger
Coding opens by default. The marker compares each value with the best source-verified result in the catalog; provisional leaders do not set the reference. Expand the remaining categories for every published row.
Coding7 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Pro | Score66.1% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 89.9% | Gap23.8 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| DeepSWE | Score43.3% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Muse Wonder Full · 79.0% | Gap35.7 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| SciCodeScientific Code Benchmark | Score49.2% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Sakana Fugu · 60.1% | Gap10.9 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| SWE Multilingual | Score78.3% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 93.9% | Gap15.6 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 | Score80.1% | Versus best verified row Best verified: SWE-2 · 92.8% | Gap12.7 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| SWE-Atlas Codebase QnA | Score31.8% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Ling 3.1 Flash · 64.5% | Gap32.7 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSoftware Engineering Benchmark Verified | Score81.6% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 96% | Gap14.4 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
Agentic6 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HLE w/ toolsHumanity's Last Exam with tools | Score51.1% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Kimi K3.1 Pro · 70.0% | Gap18.9 behind | Weight3% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| τ³-bench resultsτ³-Bench Tool-Agent-User Evaluation | Score36.1% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Mercury 2.5 · 96.0% | Gap59.9 behind | Weight2% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 | Score80.1% | Versus best verified row Best verified: SWE-2 · 92.8% | Gap12.7 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| BrowseComp | Score76.8% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Atria Dawn Preview · 92.5% | Gap15.7 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| MCP Atlas | Score80.8% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Muse Spark Open · 89.2% | Gap8.4 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| DeepSearchQA | Score80.5% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Atria Dawn Preview · 96.0% | Gap15.5 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
Reasoning2 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CritPtCritical Physics Tasks | Score16.3% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Gemini 4 Carbon · 36.0% | Gap19.7 behind | WeightFeeds overall | Provider exact |
| LongBench v2 | Score67.5% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Beam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8 · 67.6% | Gap0.1 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
Knowledge2 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HLE w/o toolsHumanity's Last Exam without tools | Score36% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 64.4% | Gap28.4 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| GPQA-DGPQA Diamond | Score90.6% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 96.0% | Gap5.4 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
Inst. Following1 row
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IFBenchInstruction Following Benchmark | Score79.6% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Flint · 89.2% | Gap9.6 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
Math1 row
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AIME26AIME 2026 | Score97.7% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GLM-5.2 · 99.2% | Gap1.5 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
Bars run 0–100; the dark tick marks the best source-verified value
All 19 rowsLineage
The sequence follows explicit supersedes links. Each score is estimated for that model; a relative can inform a sparse estimate but never sets a floor, so a newer release can score below an earlier one. Scores and prices remain blank when the corresponding public row or first-party rate is unavailable.
Spec sheet
Each documented value carries its source. Missing fields stay visible as not sourced or not published, rather than disappearing from the page.
- API model ID
- Beam-1.0-501B-A23BReflection developer docs, Models
- Context window
- 1MReflection Beam 1.0 BF16 model card
- Maximum output
- Not sourced yet
- Knowledge cutoff
- Not sourced yet
- Input modalities
- textReflection Beam 1.0 BF16 model card
- Output modalities
- textReflection Beam 1.0 BF16 model card
- Parameters
- Not sourced yet
- Availability
- Hugging Face · self-hosted inference · Reflection API public beta · partner endpointsReflection Beam 1.0 BF16 model card
- Cloud regions
- Not tracked yet
- Lifecycle
- activeReflection Beam 1.0 BF16 model card
- API capabilities
- Tool calling, structured outputs, and batch support are not tracked yet
- Prompt caching
- Not documented in the pricing recordReflection launch post
- Self-host
- Beam 1.0 501B-A23B needs ~640GB VRAM (8× NVIDIA H100 (80GB)).
- Rate limits
- Not tracked yet
How to read this profile
The visual layer above carries the decisions. These notes preserve the model, ranking, coverage, and family context behind the numbers.
Beam 1.0 501B-A23B ranks #130 of 216 on the public leaderboard with a score of 43.08/100. It does not yet have enough sourced coverage for a verified position.
Beam 1.0 501B-A23B is a open weight model with a 1M context window. It uses an explicit reasoning mode, which can improve complex problem solving while adding latency and token use.
Open Apache 2.0 weights in BF16, FP8 and NVFP4 on Hugging Face for self-hosted inference (Reflection documents four NVLink-connected B300 GPUs for a single server), the Reflection API in public beta, and partner endpoints at launch. No per-token tariff is published for the first-party API.
Reflection released Beam 1.0 as open weights on October 16, 2026 under Apache 2.0: a text-only sparse mixture-of-experts model with 501.3B total and 23.4B active parameters, 52 layers, gated grouped-query and sliding-window attention, a 1M-token context window and a June 30, 2026 knowledge cutoff, published in BF16, FP8 and NVFP4 numerics with a DFlash2 speculative drafter. Benchmark values are the BF16 column of Reflection's model card, run at temperature 0.7 and top_p 0.99 with reasoning on; the FP8 and NVFP4 columns sit on their own rows. SWE-bench Pro v1 stays separate from v2-Hard, Terminal-Bench 2.1 is never mapped to 2.0, and the long-context, physics and Tau3 banking lanes carry the provider-run figures because no independent row exists yet. LiveCodeBench is reported without a version, SWE-bench Pro v2-Hard has no lane, AutomationBench and the Omniscience index are public-split-only figures, and the Iris safety rates are not benchmark lanes; those stay unmapped. The hosted API lists the model as Beam-1.0-501B-A23B in public beta with mandatory reasoning at five effort levels and a 128K maximum output.
Beam 1.0 501B-A23B sits in the Beam family with Beam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8, Beam 1.0 501B-A23B NVFP4. 19 of 784 tracked benchmark slots currently have displayable evidence. Missing categories stay blank.
Its strongest eligible category is Agentic at #65, while its lowest eligible position is Coding at #106. particularly useful for coding agents, browser research, and computer-use workflows.
Last updated October 29, 2026. Runtime fields remain blank until a sourced snapshot exists.
Deployment options
Self-host and provider-specific paths stay separate from benchmark evidence so operating constraints are visible before a score becomes the whole decision.
Where to run Beam 1.0 501B-A23B by API
3 hosts publish a per-token price for it. Nebius Token Factory has the lowest output rate, $1.00 per million tokens. Prices read from each host’s own pages on October 20, 2026.
| Host | Input /1M | Output /1M | Cached /1M | Context | Listed speed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nebius Token Factory | $0.25 | $1.00 | — | 1.05M | 389 tok/s |
| OpenRouter | $0.30 | $1.00 | $0.04 | 1.05M | — |
| Together AI | $0.40 | $1.20 | $0.04 | 1.05M | — |
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
Questions
How does Beam 1.0 501B-A23B perform overall in AI benchmarks?
Beam 1.0 501B-A23B ranks #130 out of 216 models on the public BenchAlign leaderboard, with a score of 43.08/100. Its evidence status is Estimated, and this profile shows 19 source-displayable benchmark rows. The label describes evidence depth, not a provider quality claim; inspect category rows before choosing a workload.
Is Beam 1.0 501B-A23B good for knowledge and understanding?
Beam 1.0 501B-A23B ranks #86 out of 179 eligible models for knowledge and understanding, with a public category score of 48.1/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.
Is Beam 1.0 501B-A23B good for coding and programming?
Beam 1.0 501B-A23B ranks #106 out of 156 eligible models for coding and programming, with a public category score of 28.7/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.
Is Beam 1.0 501B-A23B good for mathematics?
Beam 1.0 501B-A23B has source-displayable benchmark coverage for mathematics, but the public category table does not assign it a rank there. The individual rows remain available for inspection. A missing category position means the evidence threshold was not met; it does not convert the model's unmeasured work into a zero.
Is Beam 1.0 501B-A23B good for reasoning and logic?
Beam 1.0 501B-A23B has source-displayable benchmark coverage for reasoning and logic, but the public category table does not assign it a rank there. The individual rows remain available for inspection. A missing category position means the evidence threshold was not met; it does not convert the model's unmeasured work into a zero.
Is Beam 1.0 501B-A23B good for agentic tool use and computer tasks?
Beam 1.0 501B-A23B ranks #65 out of 135 eligible models for agentic tool use and computer tasks, with a public category score of 44.8/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.
Is Beam 1.0 501B-A23B good for instruction following?
Beam 1.0 501B-A23B has source-displayable benchmark coverage for instruction following, but the public category table does not assign it a rank there. The individual rows remain available for inspection. A missing category position means the evidence threshold was not met; it does not convert the model's unmeasured work into a zero.
Is Beam 1.0 501B-A23B open source?
Beam 1.0 501B-A23B is an open-weight model from Reflection AI. Its weights can be downloaded for local or hosted deployment, subject to the published license. Open weight does not automatically mean open source: training data and training code may remain private, and commercial restrictions can still apply.
Which sibling models are related to Beam 1.0 501B-A23B?
Beam 1.0 501B-A23B belongs to the Beam family. Related tracked variants include Beam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8, Beam 1.0 501B-A23B NVFP4. A sibling link indicates shared lineage or a documented configuration relationship; it does not mean the variants have identical pricing, context limits, benchmark evidence, or deployment behavior. Compare before switching.
Does Beam 1.0 501B-A23B have full benchmark coverage on BenchLM?
No. Beam 1.0 501B-A23B currently has 38 source-displayable rows. The profile exposes published, non-generated evidence and leaves missing categories blank until an exact evaluation is available. Coverage describes how much was measured; it is not a penalty added to an individual benchmark result.
What is the context window size of Beam 1.0 501B-A23B?
Beam 1.0 501B-A23B has a documented context window of 1M. That figure is the maximum combined prompt and retained-conversation space reported for this exact model; it is not the maximum output length. The profile keeps output limits separate because providers often publish those limits independently.