Benchmark Almanac

CC-OCR-Bench-V2

Qwen3.7-Plus 76.6% leads since June 2026
Qwen 3.8 Max 79.6% leads since August 2026
In use

Models process 7,093 hard real-world document samples across five OCR tracks, including parsing and document QA. Each track uses its own metric.

This is a new version, and the original CC-OCR from December 2024 is a separate benchmark.

Released
May 2026
Kind
Documents, charts and text in images
Level
Everyday
Scored
Checked automatically
Answers
Short answer
Tasks
All public
Strongest model tested
GPT-5.5 #20 on the capability index
Last in a launch post
August 2026
Last model added
August 2026
Scores refreshed
November 12th, 2026

In the authors’ words

Recent Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) have achieved remarkable progress on OCR-centric document understanding and processing tasks. Existing benchmarks primarily evaluate LMMs across diverse tasks to reflect practical document-processing workflows or analyze how document characteristics influence model performance. However, they provide limited insight into the reliability of LMMs under real-world document acquisition conditions, where factors such as lighting, screen displays, imaging quality, and capture methods can substantially affect performance. To bridge this gap, we present CC-OCR v2, a comprehensive benchmark for attributing LMM failures in real-world document processing. CC-OCR v2 provides a unified evaluation framework covering five core document-processing capabilities through 16 subtasks, 74 application scenarios, and 7,093 samples. The benchmark spans five evaluation tracks, ten document categories, and 32 languages in the recognition suite. Beyond task-level evaluation, each sample is annotated with ten fine-grained document factors, enabling systematic attribution of model failures across document types and acquisition conditions. Extensive experiments on 17 representative LMMs reveal substantial performance variation across tasks, document categories, and real-world conditions. Moreover, models with comparable overall accuracy often exhibit fundamentally different failure patterns under specific document factors, highlighting a significant gap between benchmark-level performance and reliable deployment in practical applications. The dataset and evaluation toolkit are publicly available at https://github.com/eioss/CC-OCR-V2.

Abstract of CC-OCR V2: Fine-Grained Attribution of LMM Failures in Real-World Visual Document Understanding (arXiv:2605.03903, CC0)
17
Entries on its own leaderboard, 15 models we track
1
Launch post lists it, from 1 lab

Qwen3.7-Plus leads with 76.6% among models released by June 2026

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.

Qwen 3.8 Max leads with 79.6%, claims included

Best score per model from every source, including labs’ own numbers and claims Epoch AI collected from reports and papers. Labs pick their own settings, so a claim can beat an independent run of the same model.

The newest model with a score here came out in June 2026, and nobody has tested a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:

  1. 1 Qwen3.7-Plus 76.6%
  2. 2 Qwen 3.6 Plus 76.5%
  3. 3 Kimi K2.5 73.3%
  4. 4 Seed2.0 Pro 73%
  5. 5 Kimi K2.6 72.9%
  6. 6 Gemini 3.1 Pro 70.2%
  7. 7 Qwen3.5-9B 67.3%
  8. 8 Claude Opus 4.8 65.4%
  9. 9 GPT-5.5 64.2%
  10. 10 Gemini 3.1 Flash 61.4%
  11. 11 Claude Sonnet 4.6 59.8%
  12. 12 Claude Opus 4.6 58.8%
  13. 13 Qwen-VL-Max 57.6%
  14. 14 GPT-5.4 56.7%
  15. 15 MiniCPM-o 4.5-8B 52%
  16. 16 InternVL3.5-8B 48.3%
  17. 17 STEP3-VL-10B 41%

Source: Official CC-OCR-Bench-V2 leaderboard

#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
1 Qwen3.7-Plus 76.6% Jun 2026 Official leaderboard
2 Qwen 3.6 Plus 76.5% Mar 2026 Official leaderboard
3 Kimi K2.5 73.3% Jan 2026 Official leaderboard
4 Seed2.0 Pro 73% Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
5 Kimi K2.6 72.9% Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
6 Gemini 3.1 Pro 70.2% Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
7 Qwen3.5-9B 67.3% Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
8 Claude Opus 4.8 65.4% May 2026 Official leaderboard
9 GPT-5.5 64.2% Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
10 Gemini 3.1 Flash 61.4% Official leaderboard
11 Claude Sonnet 4.6 59.8% Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
12 Claude Opus 4.6 58.8% Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
13 Qwen-VL-Max 57.6% Jan 2024 Official leaderboard
14 GPT-5.4 56.7% Mar 2026 Official leaderboard
15 MiniCPM-o 4.5-8B 52% Official leaderboard
16 InternVL3.5-8B 48.3% Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
17 STEP3-VL-10B 41% Jan 2026 Official leaderboard
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Qwen 3.8 Max 79.6% Aug 2026 Lab model card
2 Qwen3.7-Plus 76.6% Jun 2026 Official leaderboard
3 Qwen 3.6 Plus 76.5% Mar 2026 Official leaderboard
4 Kimi K2.5 73.3% Jan 2026 Official leaderboard
5 Seed2.0 Pro 73% Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
6 Kimi K2.6 72.9% Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
7 Gemini 3.1 Pro 70.2% Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
8 Qwen3.5-9B 67.3% Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
9 Claude Opus 4.8 65.4% May 2026 Official leaderboard
10 GPT-5.5 64.2% Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
11 Claude Sonnet 4.6 59.8% Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
12 Claude Opus 4.6 58.8% Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
13 Qwen-VL-Max 57.6% Jan 2024 Official leaderboard
14 GPT-5.4 56.7% Mar 2026 Official leaderboard
15 InternVL3.5-8B 48.3% Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
16 STEP3-VL-10B 41% Jan 2026 Official leaderboard

Labs report scores for 1 model in their cards. Switch the scores above to rank them together.

2 models have held number one on the official leaderboard since its release in May 2026 3 models have held number one with claims included since its release in May 2026

Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.

Qwen
Own leaderboard Not tested since Jun 2026
Qwen3.7-Plus 76.6%

Source: Official CC-OCR-Bench-V2 leaderboard

Scores over time

All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.

On the benchmark’s own leaderboard Reported by the lab in its model card Best so far
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2024 2025 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Qwen 3.8 Max Kimi K2.5 Qwen-VL-Max 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2024 2025 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Qwen 3.8 Max Kimi K2.5

Sources: Official CC-OCR-Bench-V2 leaderboard and labs’ model cards

One lab put it in a launch post in the last six months

Launch posts from every lab that has listed it, one tick per post. Tall colored ticks include it, and short gray ones leave it out.

Qwen
DateLaunch postScoreAs the post writes it
Aug 3, 2026 Qwen 3.8 Max 79.6 CC-OCR-Bench-V2

Versions

More in Vision

All 281 in Vision
  • MMMU In use 11.5K college-level multimodal questions across 30 subjects. Multiple-choice and open accuracy. GPT-5.1 85.4%
  • MMMU-Pro In use Harder MMMU: college-level multimodal questions with more options and vision-only inputs to remove text shortcuts. GPT-5.6 Sol 84.6%
  • CharXiv In use Chart understanding on real arXiv figures. Reasoning questions require synthesizing information from complex charts. Claude Fable 5 93.5%
  • MATH-Vision (MathVision) In use 3,040 competition math problems with visual context. Answer accuracy. Qwen 3.8 Max 97.7%
  • MMStar In use Models answer 1,500 human-curated image questions that cannot be solved without the image, across 6 core capabilities. Scored by accuracy. Qwen 3.8 Max 85.9%
  • ChartQA In use Models answer human-written and generated questions about chart images that need visual and arithmetic reasoning. Scored by relaxed accuracy with a 5 percent numeric tolerance. Command A Vision 90.9%