Benchmark Almanac

ChartQA Pro

Claude Opus 4.8 72.3% leads since May 2026
InternVL2.5-8B 35.7% leads since April 2025
Claude Opus 4.8 72.3% leads since May 2026
Fading

Model answers 1,948 diverse questions over 1,341 charts, infographics and dashboards, including conversational and unanswerable ones. Accuracy.

ACL 2025 Findings.

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

In the authors’ words

Charts are ubiquitous, as people often use them to analyze data, answer questions, and discover critical insights. However, performing complex analytical tasks with charts requires significant perceptual and cognitive effort. Chart Question Answering (CQA) systems automate this process by enabling models to interpret and reason with visual representations of data. However, existing benchmarks like ChartQA lack real-world diversity and have recently shown performance saturation with modern large vision-language models (LVLMs). To address these limitations, we introduce ChartQAPro, a new benchmark that includes 1,341 charts from 157 diverse sources, spanning various chart types, including infographics and dashboards, and featuring 1,948 questions in various types, such as multiple-choice, conversational, hypothetical, and unanswerable questions, to better reflect real-world challenges. Our evaluations with 21 models show a substantial performance drop for LVLMs on ChartQAPro; e.g., Claude Sonnet 3.5 scores 90.5% on ChartQA but only 55.81% on ChartQAPro, underscoring the complexity of chart reasoning. We complement our findings with detailed error analyses and ablation studies, identifying key challenges and opportunities for advancing LVLMs in chart understanding and reasoning. We release ChartQAPro at https://github.com/vis-nlp/ChartQAPro.

Abstract of ChartQAPro: A More Diverse and Challenging Benchmark for Chart Question Answering (arXiv:2504.05506, CC0)
8
Models scored in lab cards
7
Launch posts list it, from 5 labs
7
System cards report it, from 4 labs

Claude Opus 4.8 leads with 72.3% among models released by September 2026

Best score per model as labs report them in their own cards. Labs pick their own settings, so these compare less cleanly than independent runs.

InternVL2.5-8B leads with 35.7% across all independent runs

Best score per model across the official leaderboard, Epoch AI’s own runs and any board Epoch AI copied. Each bar and row names its source.

Claude Opus 4.8 leads with 72.3%, 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 September 2026, and nobody has reported a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:

  1. 1 Claude Opus 4.8 72.3%
  2. 2 Seed2.0 Pro 71.2%
  3. 3 Intern-S2-397B 71.1%
  4. 4 Seed2.1 Pro 70.9%
  5. 5 GLM-4.6V 65.5%
  6. 6 GLM-4.5V 64%
  7. 7 EXAONE 4.5 33B 62.2%
  8. 8 GLM-4.1V-9B-Thinking 59.5%

Source: Labs’ model cards

#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Claude Opus 4.8 72.3% May 2026 Lab model card
2 Seed2.0 Pro 71.2% Feb 2026 Lab model card
3 Intern-S2-397B 71.1% Sep 2026 Lab model card
4 Seed2.1 Pro 70.9% Jun 2026 Lab model card
5 GLM-4.6V 65.5% Dec 2025 Lab model card
6 GLM-4.5V 64% Aug 2025 Lab model card
7 EXAONE 4.5 33B 62.2% Apr 2026 Lab model card
8 GLM-4.1V-9B-Thinking 59.5% Jul 2025 Lab model card
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 InternVL2.5-8B 35.7% Direct Dec 2024 Official leaderboard
2 Ovis1.6-Gemma2-9B 26.8% Direct Sep 2024 Official leaderboard
3 llava-v1.6-mistral-7b 22% Direct Jan 2024 Official leaderboard
4 InternVL2.5-2B 17.8% Direct Dec 2024 Official leaderboard
5 Ovis1.6-Llama3.2-3B 16.2% Program-of-Thought Oct 2024 Official leaderboard
6 InternVL2.5-1B 9.33% Direct Dec 2024 Official leaderboard
7 Janus-1.3B 9.21% Direct Oct 2024 Official leaderboard
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Claude Opus 4.8 72.3% May 2026 Lab model card
2 Seed2.0 Pro 71.2% Feb 2026 Lab model card
3 Intern-S2-397B 71.1% Sep 2026 Lab model card
4 Seed2.1 Pro 70.9% Jun 2026 Lab model card
5 GLM-4.6V 65.5% Dec 2025 Lab model card
6 GLM-4.5V 64% Aug 2025 Lab model card
7 EXAONE 4.5 33B 62.2% Apr 2026 Lab model card
8 GLM-4.1V-9B-Thinking 59.5% Jul 2025 Lab model card
9 InternVL2.5-8B 35.7% Direct Dec 2024 Official leaderboard
10 Ovis1.6-Gemma2-9B 26.8% Direct Sep 2024 Official leaderboard
11 llava-v1.6-mistral-7b 22% Direct Jan 2024 Official leaderboard
12 InternVL2.5-2B 17.8% Direct Dec 2024 Official leaderboard
13 Ovis1.6-Llama3.2-3B 16.2% Program-of-Thought Oct 2024 Official leaderboard
14 InternVL2.5-1B 9.33% Direct Dec 2024 Official leaderboard
15 Janus-1.3B 9.21% Direct Oct 2024 Official leaderboard

The benchmark's own leaderboard has 21 entries, 7 of them models we track. Switch the scores above to rank them together.

Scores at each effort level

Models the leaderboard ran at two or more effort levels. We don’t have enough cost data here to say what the extra effort costs.

Lowest effort to highest, light to dark
InternVL2.5-8B
Program-of-… Chain-of-Th… Direct
35.7%
Ovis1.6-Gemma2-9B
Chain-of-Th… Program-of-… Direct
26.8%
llava-v1.6-mistral-7b
Program-of-… Chain-of-Th… Direct
22%
InternVL2.5-2B
Program-of-… Chain-of-Th… Direct
17.8%
Ovis1.6-Llama3.2-3B
Direct
16.2%
InternVL2.5-1B
Program-of-… Chain-of-Th…
9.33%
Janus-1.3B
Program-of-… Direct
9.21%

Source: Official ChartQA Pro leaderboard

ModelEffortHarnessScoreCost per taskOutput tokens
InternVL2.5-8B Direct 35.7%
InternVL2.5-8B Chain-of-Thought 32%
Ovis1.6-Gemma2-9B Direct 26.8%
InternVL2.5-8B Program-of-Thought 23.9%
Ovis1.6-Gemma2-9B Program-of-Thought 22.9%
llava-v1.6-mistral-7b Direct 22%
Ovis1.6-Gemma2-9B Chain-of-Thought 18.4%
InternVL2.5-2B Direct 17.8%
Ovis1.6-Llama3.2-3B Program-of-Thought 16.2%
Ovis1.6-Llama3.2-3B Chain-of-Thought 15.4%
llava-v1.6-mistral-7b Chain-of-Thought 14.7%
Ovis1.6-Llama3.2-3B Direct 13.5%
InternVL2.5-2B Chain-of-Thought 13.5%
InternVL2.5-1B Direct 9.33%
Janus-1.3B Direct 9.21%
InternVL2.5-1B Chain-of-Thought 8.96%
Janus-1.3B Chain-of-Thought 7.03%
llava-v1.6-mistral-7b Program-of-Thought 5.98%
Janus-1.3B Program-of-Thought 4.74%
InternVL2.5-2B Program-of-Thought 2.10%
InternVL2.5-1B Program-of-Thought 0.85%

5 models have held number one in labs’ own numbers since its release in April 2025 Number one over time 6 models have held number one with claims included since its release in April 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.

Shanghai AI Lab Z.ai ByteDance Seed Anthropic
Own leaderboard Not tested since Apr 2025
Lab claims Not tested since Sep 2026

Sources: Official ChartQA Pro 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% 2024 2025 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Claude Opus 4.8 GLM-4.6V GLM-4.1V-9B-Thinking InternVL2.5-8B Ovis1.6-Gemma2-9B llava-v1.6-mistral-7b 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2024 2025 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Claude Opus 4.8 GLM-4.6V

Sources: Official ChartQA Pro leaderboard and labs’ model cards

Labs headline it less often now, last in September 2026

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
ByteDance Seed
LG AI Research
Anthropic
Shanghai AI Lab
DateLaunch postScoreAs the post writes it
Sep 13, 2026 Intern-S2-397B 71.1 ChartQAPro
May 28, 2026 Claude Opus 4.8 72.3 ChartQAPro (with tools)
Apr 9, 2026 EXAONE 4.5 33B 62.2 ChartQAPro
Feb 14, 2026 Seed2.0 Pro 71.2 ChartQAPro
Dec 8, 2025 GLM-4.6V 65.5 ChartQAPro
Aug 11, 2025 GLM-4.5V 64 ChartQAPro
Jul 1, 2025 GLM-4.1V-9B-Thinking 59.5 ChartQAPro

7 system cards report it, from 4 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 23, 2026 Seed2.1 Pro model card 70.9 ChartQAPro (Table 9) Capabilities
May 28, 2026 Claude Opus 4.8 system card 69.4 ChartQAPro, no tools, max effort, five runs (72.3% with Python tools) (Table 8.1.A, 8.12.1) Capabilities
Apr 9, 2026 EXAONE 4.5 33B technical report 62.2 ChartQAPro (Table 2, Reasoning mode) Capabilities
Feb 14, 2026 Seed2.0 Pro model card 71.2 ChartQAPro (Table 8) Capabilities
Jan 1, 2026 GLM-4.6V technical report 65.5 ChartQAPro, GLM-4.6V thinking (Table 2) Capabilities
Aug 13, 2025 GLM-4.5V technical report 64 ChartQAPro, GLM-4.5V thinking (Table 2) Capabilities
Jul 1, 2025 GLM-4.1V-9B-Thinking technical report 59.5 ChartQAPro, GLM-4.1V-9B-Thinking thinking (Table 2) Capabilities

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%