ArtifactsBench (Gemini 2.5 Pro 0506 judge)
Models generate interactive visual code artifacts for 1,825 tasks. An MLLM judge scores rendered screenshots and code against a per-task checklist.
The historical judge tab uses Gemini 2.5 Pro 0506. Its scores remain separate from the current Gemini 2.5 Pro judge.
- Made by
- Tencent Hunyuan
- Released
- July 2025
- Kind
- Web and app front ends
- Level
- University
- Scored
- Graded by a model
- Answers
- Open-ended
- Tasks
- All public
- Strongest model tested
- o1 #117 on the capability index
- Last model added
- July 2025
- Scores refreshed
- November 12th, 2026
In the authors’ words
The generative capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) are rapidly expanding from static code to dynamic, interactive visual artifacts. This progress is bottlenecked by a critical evaluation gap: established benchmarks focus on algorithmic correctness and are blind to the visual fidelity and interactive integrity that define modern user experiences. To bridge this gap, we introduce ArtifactsBench, a new benchmark and paradigm for the automated, multimodal evaluation of visual code generation. Our framework programmatically renders each generated artifact and captures its dynamic behavior through temporal screenshots. This visual evidence, alongside the source code, is then assessed by a Multimodal LLM (MLLM)-as-Judge, which is rigorously guided by a fine-grained, per-task checklist to ensure holistic and reproducible scoring. We construct a new benchmark of 1,825 diverse tasks and evaluate over 30 leading LLMs. Our automated evaluation achieves a striking 94.4% ranking consistency with WebDev Arena, the gold-standard for human preference in web development, and over 90% pairwise agreement with human experts. This establishes ArtifactsBench as the first framework to reliably automate the assessment of human-perceived quality at scale. Our analysis provides a high-resolution map of the current SOTA, revealing that generalist models often outperform domain-specific ones. We open-source ArtifactsBench, including the benchmark, evaluation harness, and baseline results at https://artifactsbenchmark.github.io/, to provide the community with a scalable and accurate tool to accelerate the development of user-centric generative models.
Gemini-2.5-Pro-0605 tops the leaderboard with 57%
Best score per entry from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on November 12th, 2026. Where a model ran with several settings or harnesses, we keep its best. Names in gray aren't in our model list: fine-tunes, agent systems, products and older models. They don't count toward leaders. The best model we track is Claude 3.7 Sonnet, at 52.2%.
The newest model with a score here came out in July 2025, and nobody has tested a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:
- Claude Fable 5.2
-
Gemini 4 Carbon
- GPT-6 Astra
- Claude Opus 5.5
- and 16 more
- 57.0 Gemini-2.5-Pro-0605
- 56.8 Gemini-2.5-Pro-0506
- 55.8 Claude 4.0-Sonnet
- 52.2 Claude 3.7 Sonnet
- 51.6
DeepSeek-R1
- 51.0
Hunyuan-TurboS
- 48.2 GPT-4.1
- 47.9 Seed-thinking-1.5
- 45.6
DeepSeek-V3
- 45.0 OpenAI-o3-mini
- 44.6 Qwen3-253B-A22B (Instruct)
- 43.0
Hunyuan-A13B-Instruct
- 42.2 Qwen3-32B (Instruct)
- 40.8
QwQ-32B
- 40.1
Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct
- 39.8
Qwen3-14B
- 38.6 o1
- 38.0 GPT-4o
- 37.2
Gemma 3 27B
- 36.5
Qwen3-8B
- 35.5 Gemma3-12B-it
- 35.3
Qwen2.5-Coder-32B-Instruct
- 35.2
Seed-Coder-8B-Instruct
- 35.0 DeepSeek-distill-qwen-32B
- 34.5
Qwen2.5-72B
- 32.8
Qwen3-4B
- 32.1 Qwen2.5-32B-Instruct
- 31.7
Qwen2.5-VL-72B
- 30.5 Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct
- 27.4 Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct
- 26.0 Qwen-2.5-Coder7B-Instruct
- 1 Gemini-2.5-Pro-0605 57%
- 2 Gemini-2.5-Pro-0506 56.8%
- 3 Claude 4.0-Sonnet 55.8%
- 4 Claude 3.7 Sonnet 52.2%
- 5
DeepSeek-R1 May 2025 51.6%
- 6
Hunyuan-TurboS 51%
- 7 GPT-4.1 48.2%
- 8 Seed-thinking-1.5 47.9%
- 9
DeepSeek-V3 Mar 2025 45.6%
- 10 OpenAI-o3-mini 45%
- 11 Qwen3-253B-A22B (Instruct) 44.6%
- 12
Hunyuan-A13B-Instruct 43%
- 13 Qwen3-32B (Instruct) 42.2%
- 14
QwQ-32B 40.8%
- 15
Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct Jul 2025 40.1%
- 16
Qwen3-14B 39.8%
- 17 o1 38.6%
- 18 GPT-4o Mar 2025 38%
- 19
Gemma 3 27B 37.2%
- 20
Qwen3-8B 36.5%
- 21 Gemma3-12B-it 35.5%
- 22
Qwen2.5-Coder-32B-Instruct 35.3%
- 23
Seed-Coder-8B-Instruct 35.2%
- 24 DeepSeek-distill-qwen-32B 35%
- 25
Qwen2.5-72B 34.5%
- 26
Qwen3-4B 32.8%
- 27 Qwen2.5-32B-Instruct 32.1%
- 28
Qwen2.5-VL-72B 31.7%
- 29 Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct 30.5%
- 30 Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct 27.4%
- 31 Qwen-2.5-Coder7B-Instruct 26%
Source: Official ArtifactsBench (Gemini 2.5 Pro 0506 judge) leaderboard
| # | Entry | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gemini-2.5-Pro-0605 | 57% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 2 | Gemini-2.5-Pro-0506 | 56.8% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 3 | Claude 4.0-Sonnet | 55.8% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 4 | Claude 3.7 Sonnet | 52.2% | Feb 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 5 | | 51.6% | May 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 6 | | 51% | Feb 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 7 | GPT-4.1 | 48.2% | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 8 | Seed-thinking-1.5 | 47.9% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 9 | | 45.6% | Mar 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 10 | OpenAI-o3-mini | 45% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 11 | Qwen3-253B-A22B (Instruct) | 44.6% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 12 | | 43% | Jun 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 13 | Qwen3-32B (Instruct) | 42.2% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 14 | | 40.8% | Mar 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 15 | | 40.1% | Jul 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 16 | | 39.8% | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 17 | o1 | 38.6% | Dec 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 18 | GPT-4o Mar 2025 | 38% | Mar 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 19 | | 37.2% | Mar 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 20 | | 36.5% | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 21 | Gemma3-12B-it | 35.5% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 22 | | 35.3% | Nov 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 23 | | 35.2% | May 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 24 | DeepSeek-distill-qwen-32B | 35% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 25 | | 34.5% | Sep 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 26 | | 32.8% | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 27 | Qwen2.5-32B-Instruct | 32.1% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 28 | | 31.7% | Jan 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 29 | Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct | 30.5% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 30 | Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct | 27.4% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 31 | Qwen-2.5-Coder7B-Instruct | 26% | Official leaderboard |
Number one over time
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.
Source: Official ArtifactsBench (Gemini 2.5 Pro 0506 judge) leaderboard
Scores over time
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
Source: Official ArtifactsBench (Gemini 2.5 Pro 0506 judge) leaderboard
No lab model card reports it yet
We read the headline results of 522 launch posts from 52 labs, and none of them list this benchmark.
Versions
We switch the top row to each new version when it comes out. Open it for one row per version. An old version stays in play while people still test it, so whoever first takes it past 85% gets credit for closing it out.
Sources: Official leaderboards and labs’ model cards
More in Coding
- SWE-bench Verified In use 500 human-validated GitHub issues from 12 Python repos. Agent writes a patch that must pass hidden tests. Claude Opus 4.7 83.5%
- LiveCodeBench v6 In use Competitive programming problems collected after model cutoffs from LeetCode, AtCoder, Codeforces. Scored pass@1 on hidden tests.
DeepSeek-V4-Pro 93.5%
- SWE-bench Multilingual In use 300 GitHub-issue tasks across nine programming languages in SWE-bench format. Patch graded by repository tests. Claude Fable 5.2 96.6%
- DeepSWE In use 113 original long-horizon engineering tasks across 91 repos and five languages, written from scratch. Hand-written verifiers accept alternative solutions. GPT-6 Astra 74.1%
- SciCode In use Scientist-curated research coding problems split into subproblems across natural sciences. Code checked against test cases.
Seed2.1 Pro 59.8%
- Codeforces rating In use Model solves recent Codeforces contest problems. An Elo-style rating is computed from simulated contest performance.
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 3,471