Benchmark Almanac

ChartMuseum

Gemini 3.1 Pro 80.7% leads since February 2026
Gemini 3.1 Pro 80.7% leads since February 2026
Fading

Models answer 1,162 expert-annotated questions about real-world charts from 184 sources. Many questions need visual reasoning that text cannot replace.

The test split has 1,000 questions and the dev split has 162. An LLM grader checks short answers.

Released
May 2025
Kind
Documents, charts and text in images
Level
Expert
Scored
Graded by a model
Answers
Short answer
Tasks
All public
Strongest model tested
Claude Opus 4.8 #21 on the capability index
Last in a launch post
December 2025, dropped before it saturated
Last model added
June 2026
Scores refreshed
November 12th, 2026

In the authors’ words

Chart understanding presents a unique challenge for large vision-language models (LVLMs), as it requires the integration of sophisticated textual and visual reasoning capabilities. However, current LVLMs exhibit a notable imbalance between these skills, falling short on visual reasoning that is difficult to perform in text. We conduct a case study using a synthetic dataset solvable only through visual reasoning and show that model performance degrades significantly with increasing visual complexity, while human performance remains robust. We then introduce ChartMuseum, a new Chart Question Answering (QA) benchmark containing 1,162 expert-annotated questions spanning multiple reasoning types, curated from real-world charts across 184 sources, specifically built to evaluate complex visual and textual reasoning. Unlike prior chart understanding benchmarks – where frontier models perform similarly and near saturation – our benchmark exposes a substantial gap between model and human performance, while effectively differentiating model capabilities: although humans achieve 93% accuracy, the best-performing model Gemini-2.5-Pro attains only 63.0%, and the leading open-source LVLM Qwen2.5-VL-72B-Instruct achieves only 38.5%. Moreover, on questions requiring primarily visual reasoning, all models experience a 35%-55% performance drop from text-reasoning-heavy question performance. Lastly, our qualitative error analysis reveals specific categories of visual reasoning that are challenging for current LVLMs.

Abstract of ChartMuseum: Testing Visual Reasoning Capabilities of Large Vision-Language Models (arXiv:2505.13444, CC0)
22
Entries on its own leaderboard, 21 models we track
3
Launch posts list it, from 1 lab
5
System cards report it, from 2 labs

Gemini 3.1 Pro leads with 80.7% among models released by April 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.

Gemini 3.1 Pro leads with 80.7%, 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 April 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 Gemini 3.1 Pro 80.7%
  2. 2 Gemini 3 Flash 78.6%
  3. 3 GPT-5.2 high 77%
  4. 4 Gemma 4 31B IT 71.1%
  5. 5 Gemma 4 26B A4B 70.6%
  6. 6 GPT-5 mini high 63.3%
  7. 7 Gemini-2.5-Pro (snapshot unspecified) 63%
  8. 8 GPT-5 high 62.9%
  9. 9 o4-mini high 61.5%
  10. 10 o3 high 60.9%
  11. 11 Claude Opus 4.5 high 60.7%
  12. 12 Claude Opus 4.1 59.1%
  13. 13 Claude Sonnet 4 52.6%
  14. 14 Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Thinking 49.7%
  15. 15 Qwen3-VL-8B-Thinking 44.4%
  16. 16 GLM-4.5V 40.6%
  17. 17 Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct 40.2%
  18. 18 Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct 40%
  19. 19 Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct 37.7%
  20. 20 Qwen3-VL-4B-Thinking 36.1%
  21. 21 Qwen3-VL-2B-Thinking 30.1%
  22. 22 Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct 22.7%

Source: Official ChartMuseum leaderboard

#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
1 Gemini 3.1 Pro 80.7% Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
2 Gemini 3 Flash 78.6% Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
3 GPT-5.2 77% high Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
4 Gemma 4 31B IT 71.1% Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
5 Gemma 4 26B A4B 70.6% Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
6 GPT-5 mini 63.3% high Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
7 Gemini-2.5-Pro (snapshot unspecified) 63% Official leaderboard
8 GPT-5 62.9% high Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
9 o4-mini 61.5% high Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
10 o3 60.9% high Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
11 Claude Opus 4.5 60.7% high Nov 2025 Official leaderboard
12 Claude Opus 4.1 59.1% Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
13 Claude Sonnet 4 52.6% May 2025 Official leaderboard
14 Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Thinking 49.7% Oct 2025 Official leaderboard
15 Qwen3-VL-8B-Thinking 44.4% Oct 2025 Official leaderboard
16 GLM-4.5V 40.6% Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
17 Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct 40.2% Oct 2025 Official leaderboard
18 Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct 40% Oct 2025 Official leaderboard
19 Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct 37.7% Oct 2025 Official leaderboard
20 Qwen3-VL-4B-Thinking 36.1% Oct 2025 Official leaderboard
21 Qwen3-VL-2B-Thinking 30.1% Oct 2025 Official leaderboard
22 Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct 22.7% Oct 2025 Official leaderboard
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Gemini 3.1 Pro 80.7% Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
2 Gemini 3 Flash 78.6% Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
3 GPT-5.2 77% high Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
4 Claude Opus 4.8 75.8% May 2026 Lab model card
5 Gemma 4 31B IT 71.1% Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
6 Gemma 4 26B A4B 70.6% Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
7 Claude Sonnet 5 70.1% Jun 2026 Lab model card
8 GPT-5 mini 63.3% high Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
9 GPT-5 62.9% high Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
10 o4-mini 61.5% high Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
11 o3 60.9% high Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
12 Claude Opus 4.5 60.7% high Nov 2025 Official leaderboard
13 Claude Opus 4.1 59.1% Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
14 GLM-4.6V 58.4% Dec 2025 Lab model card
15 GLM-4.5V 55.3% Aug 2025 Lab model card
16 Claude Sonnet 4 52.6% May 2025 Official leaderboard
17 Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Thinking 49.7% Oct 2025 Official leaderboard
18 GLM-4.1V-9B-Thinking 48.8% Jul 2025 Lab model card
19 Qwen3-VL-8B-Thinking 44.4% Oct 2025 Official leaderboard
20 Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct 40.2% Oct 2025 Official leaderboard
21 Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct 40% Oct 2025 Official leaderboard
22 Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct 37.7% Oct 2025 Official leaderboard
23 Qwen3-VL-4B-Thinking 36.1% Oct 2025 Official leaderboard
24 Qwen3-VL-2B-Thinking 30.1% Oct 2025 Official leaderboard
25 Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct 22.7% Oct 2025 Official leaderboard

Labs report scores for 5 models in their cards. Switch the scores above to rank them together.

5 models have held number one on the official leaderboard since its release in May 2025 5 models have held number one with claims included since its release in May 2025

Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release. We draw one row each for the benchmark’s own leaderboard and what labs claim in their cards.

OpenAI Google DeepMind Z.ai Anthropic
Own leaderboard Not tested since Apr 2026
Lab claims Not tested since Jun 2026

Sources: Official ChartMuseum leaderboard and labs’ model cards

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% 2025 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Gemini 3.1 Pro GPT-5 mini o4-mini 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2025 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Gemini 3.1 Pro GPT-5 mini

Sources: Official ChartMuseum leaderboard and labs’ model cards

Labs headline it less often now, last in December 2025

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.

Z.ai
DateLaunch postScoreAs the post writes it
Dec 8, 2025 GLM-4.6V 58.4 ChartMuseum
Aug 11, 2025 GLM-4.5V 55.3 ChartMuseum
Jul 1, 2025 GLM-4.1V-9B-Thinking 48.8 ChartMuseum

5 system cards report it, from 2 labs

Besides launch posts, we read the system cards, model cards and technical reports labs publish with a release. They report far more, including safety and frontier-risk tests.

DateDocumentScoreAs the document writes itSection
Jun 30, 2026 Claude Sonnet 5 system card 70.1 ChartMuseum test split, without tools, max effort, five runs, Sonnet 4.6 grader (86.7% with tools) (8.10.4) Capabilities
May 28, 2026 Claude Opus 4.8 system card 75.8 ChartMuseum test split, no tools, max effort, five runs (89.7% with Python tools) (8.12.2) Capabilities
Jan 1, 2026 GLM-4.6V technical report 58.4 ChartMuseum, GLM-4.6V thinking (Table 2) Capabilities
Aug 13, 2025 GLM-4.5V technical report 55.3 ChartMuseum, GLM-4.5V thinking (Table 2) Capabilities
Jul 1, 2025 GLM-4.1V-9B-Thinking technical report 48.8 ChartMuseum, GLM-4.1V-9B-Thinking thinking (Table 2) Capabilities

One lab claim next to the leaderboard

Each score a lab reported for its own model, beside the same model's best score on the leaderboard. Gaps mostly come from different harnesses, effort levels and task subsets. Every benchmark.

Model Lab says Board says Gap
GLM-4.5V 55.3% ChartMuseum 40.6% Leaderboard +15 pts

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%