ChartQA Pro
Model answers 1,948 diverse questions over 1,341 charts, infographics and dashboards, including conversational and unanswerable ones. Accuracy.
ACL 2025 Findings.
- Made by
- vis-nlp (Masry et al.)
- 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.
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:
- Claude Fable 5.2
-
Gemini 4 Carbon
- Claude Opus 5.5
- GPT-6.1 Sol
- and 16 more
- 1 Claude Opus 4.8 72.3%
- 2
Seed2.0 Pro 71.2%
- 3
Intern-S2-397B 71.1%
- 4
Seed2.1 Pro 70.9%
- 5 GLM-4.6V 65.5%
- 6 GLM-4.5V 64%
- 7
EXAONE 4.5 33B 62.2%
- 8 GLM-4.1V-9B-Thinking 59.5%
Source: Labs’ model cards
- 1
InternVL2.5-8B Direct 35.7%
- 2
Ovis1.6-Gemma2-9B Direct 26.8%
- 3 llava-v1.6-mistral-7b Direct 22%
- 4
InternVL2.5-2B Direct 17.8%
- 5
Ovis1.6-Llama3.2-3B Program-of-Thought 16.2%
- 6
InternVL2.5-1B Direct 9.33%
- 7
Janus-1.3B Direct 9.21%
Source: Official ChartQA Pro leaderboard
- 1 Claude Opus 4.8 72.3%
- 2
Seed2.0 Pro 71.2%
- 3
Intern-S2-397B 71.1%
- 4
Seed2.1 Pro 70.9%
- 5 GLM-4.6V 65.5%
- 6 GLM-4.5V 64%
- 7
EXAONE 4.5 33B 62.2%
- 8 GLM-4.1V-9B-Thinking 59.5%
- 9
InternVL2.5-8B Direct 35.7%
- 10
Ovis1.6-Gemma2-9B Direct 26.8%
- 11 llava-v1.6-mistral-7b Direct 22%
- 12
InternVL2.5-2B Direct 17.8%
- 13
Ovis1.6-Llama3.2-3B Program-of-Thought 16.2%
- 14
InternVL2.5-1B Direct 9.33%
- 15
Janus-1.3B Direct 9.21%
Sources: Labs’ model cards and official ChartQA Pro leaderboard
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Claude Opus 4.8 | 72.3% | May 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 2 | | 71.2% | Feb 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 3 | | 71.1% | Sep 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 4 | | 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 | | 62.2% | Apr 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 8 | GLM-4.1V-9B-Thinking | 59.5% | Jul 2025 | Lab model card |
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 35.7% | Direct | Dec 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 2 | | 26.8% | Direct | Sep 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 3 | llava-v1.6-mistral-7b | 22% | Direct | Jan 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 4 | | 17.8% | Direct | Dec 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 5 | | 16.2% | Program-of-Thought | Oct 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 6 | | 9.33% | Direct | Dec 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 7 | | 9.21% | Direct | Oct 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Claude Opus 4.8 | 72.3% | May 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 2 | | 71.2% | Feb 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 3 | | 71.1% | Sep 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 4 | | 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 | | 62.2% | Apr 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 8 | GLM-4.1V-9B-Thinking | 59.5% | Jul 2025 | Lab model card | |
| 9 | | 35.7% | Direct | Dec 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 10 | | 26.8% | Direct | Sep 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 11 | llava-v1.6-mistral-7b | 22% | Direct | Jan 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 12 | | 17.8% | Direct | Dec 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 13 | | 16.2% | Program-of-Thought | Oct 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 14 | | 9.33% | Direct | Dec 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 15 | | 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.
Source: Official ChartQA Pro leaderboard
| Model | Effort | Harness | Score | Cost per task | Output tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | Direct | 35.7% | |||
| | Chain-of-Thought | 32% | |||
| | Direct | 26.8% | |||
| | Program-of-Thought | 23.9% | |||
| | Program-of-Thought | 22.9% | |||
| llava-v1.6-mistral-7b | Direct | 22% | |||
| | Chain-of-Thought | 18.4% | |||
| | Direct | 17.8% | |||
| | Program-of-Thought | 16.2% | |||
| | Chain-of-Thought | 15.4% | |||
| llava-v1.6-mistral-7b | Chain-of-Thought | 14.7% | |||
| | Direct | 13.5% | |||
| | Chain-of-Thought | 13.5% | |||
| | Direct | 9.33% | |||
| | Direct | 9.21% | |||
| | Chain-of-Thought | 8.96% | |||
| | Chain-of-Thought | 7.03% | |||
| llava-v1.6-mistral-7b | Program-of-Thought | 5.98% | |||
| | Program-of-Thought | 4.74% | |||
| | Program-of-Thought | 2.10% | |||
| | 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.
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.
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.
| Date | Launch post | Score | As the post writes it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 13, 2026 | 71.1 | ChartQAPro | |
| May 28, 2026 | Claude Opus 4.8 | 72.3 | ChartQAPro (with tools) |
| Apr 9, 2026 | 62.2 | ChartQAPro | |
| Feb 14, 2026 | 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.
| Date | Document | Score | As the document writes it | Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 23, 2026 | | 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 | | 62.2 | ChartQAPro (Table 2, Reasoning mode) | Capabilities |
| Feb 14, 2026 | | 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
- 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%