Claw-Eval-MM
Agents complete the 101 multimodal tasks of Claw-Eval, such as video questions, document extraction, and webpage generation. Rubric items graded from run traces set scores.
This is the multimodal split of Claw-Eval, not a separate benchmark.
- Made by
- Claw-Eval team
- Released
- April 2026
- Kind
- General visual questions
- Level
- University
- Scored
- Graded by a model
- Answers
- Agent task
- Tasks
- All public
- Strongest model tested
- GPT-5.4 #27 on the capability index
- Last in a launch post
- September 2026
- Last model added
- September 2026
- Scores refreshed
- November 12th, 2026
In the authors’ words
Large language models are increasingly deployed as autonomous agents for multi-step workflows in real-world software environments. However, existing agent benchmarks are limited by trajectory-opaque grading, underspecified safety and robustness evaluation, and narrow coverage of modalities and interaction paradigms. We introduce Claw-Eval, an end-to-end evaluation suite addressing these gaps with 300 human-verified tasks spanning 9 categories across three groups: general service orchestration, multimodal perception and interaction, and multi-turn professional dialogue. To enable trajectory-aware grading, each run is recorded through three independent evidence channels: execution traces, audit logs, and environment snapshots, yielding 2,159 fine-grained rubric items. The scoring protocol evaluates Completion, Safety, and Robustness, with Average Score, Pass@k, and Pass^k across three trials to distinguish genuine capability from lucky outcomes. Experiments on 14 frontier models show that: (1) Trajectory-opaque evaluation is systematically unreliable, missing 44% of safety violations and 13% of robustness failures detected by our framework. (2) Capability does not imply consistency, with Pass@3 remaining stable under error injection while Pass^3 dropping by up to 24 percentage points. (3) Agent capability is strongly multi-dimensional, with model rankings varying across task groups and metrics, indicating that our heterogeneous evaluation coverage is essential. Claw-Eval highlights directions for developing agents that are not only capable but reliably deployable.
Claude Opus 4.6 leads with 54.7% among models released by April 2026
Best score per model from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on November 12th, 2026. Where a model ran with several settings or harnesses, we keep its best.
Qwen3.8 Max (0902) leads with 80.2%, 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
- 1 Claude Opus 4.6 54.7%
- 2 GPT-5.4 54.4%
- 3 MiMo-V2.5 51.5%
- 4 Claude Sonnet 4.6 50.9%
- 5
Gemini 3 Flash 50.4%
- 6 Kimi K2.5 50.2%
- 7
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 50.2%
- 8 Kimi K2.6 49.6%
- 9 GLM-5V-Turbo 47%
- 10
Gemini 3.1 Pro 45.7%
- 11 MiMo-V2-Omni 44.4%
Source: Official Claw-Eval-MM leaderboard
- 80.2
Qwen3.8 Max (0902)
- 74.8
Qwen 3.8 Max
- 61.9
Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash
- 60.4
Qwen3.8 Flash
- 56.9
Qwen 3.8 27B
- 55.7
Qwen3.7-Plus
- 54.7 Claude Opus 4.6
- 54.4 GPT-5.4
- 51.5 MiMo-V2.5
- 50.9 Claude Sonnet 4.6
- 50.4
Gemini 3 Flash
- 50.2 Kimi K2.5
- 50.2
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B
- 49.6 Kimi K2.6
- 47.0 GLM-5V-Turbo
- 45.7
Gemini 3.1 Pro
- 44.4 MiMo-V2-Omni
- 1
Qwen3.8 Max (0902) 80.2%
- 2
Qwen 3.8 Max 74.8%
- 3
Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash 61.9%
- 4
Qwen3.8 Flash 60.4%
- 5
Qwen 3.8 27B 56.9%
- 6
Qwen3.7-Plus 55.7%
- 7 Claude Opus 4.6 54.7%
- 8 GPT-5.4 54.4%
- 9 MiMo-V2.5 51.5%
- 10 Claude Sonnet 4.6 50.9%
- 11
Gemini 3 Flash 50.4%
- 12 Kimi K2.5 50.2%
- 13
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 50.2%
- 14 Kimi K2.6 49.6%
- 15 GLM-5V-Turbo 47%
- 16
Gemini 3.1 Pro 45.7%
- 17 MiMo-V2-Omni 44.4%
Sources: Labs’ model cards and official Claw-Eval-MM leaderboard
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Claude Opus 4.6 | 54.7% | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 2 | GPT-5.4 | 54.4% | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 3 | MiMo-V2.5 | 51.5% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 4 | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | 50.9% | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 5 | | 50.4% | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 6 | Kimi K2.5 | 50.2% | Jan 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 7 | | 50.2% | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 8 | Kimi K2.6 | 49.6% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 9 | GLM-5V-Turbo | 47% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 10 | | 45.7% | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 11 | MiMo-V2-Omni | 44.4% | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 80.2% | Sep 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 2 | | 74.8% | Aug 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 3 | | 61.9% | Sep 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 4 | | 60.4% | Aug 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 5 | | 56.9% | Aug 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 6 | | 55.7% | Jun 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 7 | Claude Opus 4.6 | 54.7% | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 8 | GPT-5.4 | 54.4% | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 9 | MiMo-V2.5 | 51.5% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 10 | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | 50.9% | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 11 | | 50.4% | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 12 | Kimi K2.5 | 50.2% | Jan 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 13 | | 50.2% | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 14 | Kimi K2.6 | 49.6% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 15 | GLM-5V-Turbo | 47% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 16 | | 45.7% | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 17 | MiMo-V2-Omni | 44.4% | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard |
Labs report scores for 6 models in their cards. Switch the scores above to rank them together.
Number one over time 4 models have held number one with claims included since its release in April 2026
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 Claw-Eval-MM 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 Claw-Eval-MM leaderboard and labs’ model cards
2 labs 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.
| Date | Launch post | Score | As the post writes it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 18, 2026 | 61.9 | ClawEval-MM Pass@3 60.4 Average 61.9 | |
| Sep 2, 2026 | 80.2 | Multimodal tool use, ClawEval-MM (Pass@3) | |
| Aug 26, 2026 | 60.4 | Multimodal tool use ClawEval-MM Pass@3 64.4 Average 60.4 | |
| Aug 14, 2026 | 56.9 | Multimodal tool use ClawEval-MM Pass@3 57.4 Average 56.9 | |
| Aug 3, 2026 | 74.8 | ClawEval-MM (Pass@3 / avg) 77.2 / 74.8 | |
| Jun 23, 2026 | Claw-Eval [Multimodal] (Pass^3) | ||
| Jun 1, 2026 | 55.7 | ClawEval-MM | |
| Apr 22, 2026 | MiMo-V2.5 | Claw-Eval Multimodal |
2 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 22, 2026 | | 61.9 | ClawEval-MM Average of three trials, Pass@3 60.4 (Table 3) | Capabilities |
| Jun 23, 2026 | | Claw-Eval [Multimodal], Pass^3 (Table 3) | Capabilities |
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%