ChartMuseum
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.
- Made by
- UT Austin (Tang et al.)
- 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.
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:
- Claude Fable 5.2
-
Gemini 4 Carbon
- GPT-6 Astra
- Claude Opus 5.5
- and 16 more
- 80.7
Gemini 3.1 Pro
- 78.6
Gemini 3 Flash
- 77.0 GPT-5.2
- 71.1
Gemma 4 31B IT
- 70.6
Gemma 4 26B A4B
- 63.3 GPT-5 mini
- 63.0 Gemini-2.5-Pro (snapshot unspecified)
- 62.9 GPT-5
- 61.5 o4-mini
- 60.9 o3
- 60.7 Claude Opus 4.5
- 59.1 Claude Opus 4.1
- 52.6 Claude Sonnet 4
- 49.7
Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Thinking
- 44.4
Qwen3-VL-8B-Thinking
- 40.6 GLM-4.5V
- 40.2
Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- 40.0
Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- 37.7
Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- 36.1
Qwen3-VL-4B-Thinking
- 30.1
Qwen3-VL-2B-Thinking
- 22.7
Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- 1
Gemini 3.1 Pro 80.7%
- 2
Gemini 3 Flash 78.6%
- 3 GPT-5.2 high 77%
- 4
Gemma 4 31B IT 71.1%
- 5
Gemma 4 26B A4B 70.6%
- 6 GPT-5 mini high 63.3%
- 7 Gemini-2.5-Pro (snapshot unspecified) 63%
- 8 GPT-5 high 62.9%
- 9 o4-mini high 61.5%
- 10 o3 high 60.9%
- 11 Claude Opus 4.5 high 60.7%
- 12 Claude Opus 4.1 59.1%
- 13 Claude Sonnet 4 52.6%
- 14
Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Thinking 49.7%
- 15
Qwen3-VL-8B-Thinking 44.4%
- 16 GLM-4.5V 40.6%
- 17
Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct 40.2%
- 18
Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct 40%
- 19
Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct 37.7%
- 20
Qwen3-VL-4B-Thinking 36.1%
- 21
Qwen3-VL-2B-Thinking 30.1%
- 22
Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct 22.7%
Source: Official ChartMuseum leaderboard
- 80.7
Gemini 3.1 Pro
- 78.6
Gemini 3 Flash
- 77.0 GPT-5.2
- 75.8 Claude Opus 4.8
- 71.1
Gemma 4 31B IT
- 70.6
Gemma 4 26B A4B
- 70.1 Claude Sonnet 5
- 63.3 GPT-5 mini
- 62.9 GPT-5
- 61.5 o4-mini
- 60.9 o3
- 60.7 Claude Opus 4.5
- 59.1 Claude Opus 4.1
- 58.4 GLM-4.6V
- 55.3 GLM-4.5V
- 52.6 Claude Sonnet 4
- 49.7
Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Thinking
- 48.8 GLM-4.1V-9B-Thinking
- 44.4
Qwen3-VL-8B-Thinking
- 40.2
Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- 40.0
Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- 37.7
Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- 36.1
Qwen3-VL-4B-Thinking
- 30.1
Qwen3-VL-2B-Thinking
- 22.7
Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- 1
Gemini 3.1 Pro 80.7%
- 2
Gemini 3 Flash 78.6%
- 3 GPT-5.2 high 77%
- 4 Claude Opus 4.8 75.8%
- 5
Gemma 4 31B IT 71.1%
- 6
Gemma 4 26B A4B 70.6%
- 7 Claude Sonnet 5 70.1%
- 8 GPT-5 mini high 63.3%
- 9 GPT-5 high 62.9%
- 10 o4-mini high 61.5%
- 11 o3 high 60.9%
- 12 Claude Opus 4.5 high 60.7%
- 13 Claude Opus 4.1 59.1%
- 14 GLM-4.6V 58.4%
- 15 GLM-4.5V 55.3%
- 16 Claude Sonnet 4 52.6%
- 17
Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Thinking 49.7%
- 18 GLM-4.1V-9B-Thinking 48.8%
- 19
Qwen3-VL-8B-Thinking 44.4%
- 20
Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct 40.2%
- 21
Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct 40%
- 22
Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct 37.7%
- 23
Qwen3-VL-4B-Thinking 36.1%
- 24
Qwen3-VL-2B-Thinking 30.1%
- 25
Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct 22.7%
Sources: Official ChartMuseum leaderboard and labs’ model cards
| # | Entry | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 80.7% | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 2 | | 78.6% | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 3 | GPT-5.2 | 77% | high | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 4 | | 71.1% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 5 | | 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 | | 49.7% | Oct 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 15 | | 44.4% | Oct 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 16 | GLM-4.5V | 40.6% | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 17 | | 40.2% | Oct 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 18 | | 40% | Oct 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 19 | | 37.7% | Oct 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 20 | | 36.1% | Oct 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 21 | | 30.1% | Oct 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 22 | | 22.7% | Oct 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 80.7% | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 2 | | 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 | | 71.1% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 6 | | 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 | | 49.7% | Oct 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 18 | GLM-4.1V-9B-Thinking | 48.8% | Jul 2025 | Lab model card | |
| 19 | | 44.4% | Oct 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 20 | | 40.2% | Oct 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 21 | | 40% | Oct 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 22 | | 37.7% | Oct 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 23 | | 36.1% | Oct 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 24 | | 30.1% | Oct 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 25 | | 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.
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.
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.
| Date | Launch post | Score | As 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.
| Date | Document | Score | As the document writes it | Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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.
More 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%