Benchmark Almanac

EMMA

Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking Jan 2025 42.5% leads since January 2025
Seed2.1 Pro 79.3% leads since June 2026
Fading

Models solve math, physics, chemistry and coding problems that need reasoning over text and images together, not each alone. Answers are checked against a key.

ByteDance Seed reports it in the Seed1.8 and Seed2.0 model cards.

Released
January 2025
Kind
Visual math and diagrams
Level
University
Scored
Checked automatically
Answers
Short answer
Strongest model tested
Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking Jan 2025 #148 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

The ability to organically reason over and with both text and images is a pillar of human intelligence, yet the ability of Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) to perform such multimodal reasoning remains under-explored. Existing benchmarks often emphasize text-dominant reasoning or rely on shallow visual cues, failing to adequately assess integrated visual and textual reasoning. We introduce EMMA (Enhanced MultiModal reAsoning), a benchmark targeting organic multimodal reasoning across mathematics, physics, chemistry, and coding. EMMA tasks demand advanced cross-modal reasoning that cannot be addressed by reasoning independently in each modality, offering an enhanced test suite for MLLMs' reasoning capabilities. Our evaluation of state-of-the-art MLLMs on EMMA reveals significant limitations in handling complex multimodal and multi-step reasoning tasks, even with advanced techniques like Chain-of-Thought prompting and test-time compute scaling underperforming. These findings underscore the need for improved multimodal architectures and training paradigms to close the gap between human and model reasoning in multimodality.

Abstract of Can MLLMs Reason in Multimodality? EMMA: An Enhanced MultiModal ReAsoning Benchmark (arXiv:2501.05444, CC0)
14
Entries on its own leaderboard, 7 models we track
1
Launch post lists it, from 1 lab
3
System cards report it, from 1 lab

Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking leads with 42.5% among models released by April 2025

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. Every run is in the next chart. Names in gray aren't in our model list: fine-tunes, agent systems, products and older models. They don't count toward leaders.

Seed2.1 Pro leads with 79.3%, 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 April 2025, 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 2.0 Flash Thinking Jan 2025, no CoT 42.5%
  2. 2 VL-Rethinker-72B no CoT 38.9%
  3. 3 Qwen2.5-VL-72B no CoT 38.6%
  4. 4 SRPO-32B no CoT 38.2%
  5. 5 gemini-2.0-flash-thinking-exp-1219 (December 2024 snapshot not cataloged) no CoT 38.1%
  6. 6 claude 3.5 sonnet (snapshot unspecified) CoT 37.2%
  7. 7 InternVL3-78B no CoT 34.8%
  8. 8 gemini 2.0 flash (snapshot unspecified) no CoT 33.6%
  9. 9 InternVL2_5-78B no CoT 33.5%
  10. 10 Qwen2-VL-72B-Instruct no CoT 33.5%
  11. 11 gpt-4o (snapshot unspecified) CoT 32.7%
  12. 12 SRPO-7B no CoT 29.6%
  13. 13 LLaVA-OneVision 72B no CoT 27.3%
  14. 14 InternVL2-Llama3-76B no CoT 25.1%

Source: Official EMMA leaderboard

#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
1 Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking Jan 2025 42.5% no CoT Jan 2025 Official leaderboard
2 VL-Rethinker-72B 38.9% no CoT Official leaderboard
3 Qwen2.5-VL-72B 38.6% no CoT Jan 2025 Official leaderboard
4 SRPO-32B 38.2% no CoT Official leaderboard
5 gemini-2.0-flash-thinking-exp-1219 (December 2024 snapshot not cataloged) 38.1% no CoT Official leaderboard
6 claude 3.5 sonnet (snapshot unspecified) 37.2% CoT Official leaderboard
7 InternVL3-78B 34.8% no CoT Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
8 gemini 2.0 flash (snapshot unspecified) 33.6% no CoT Official leaderboard
9 InternVL2_5-78B 33.5% no CoT Dec 2024 Official leaderboard
10 Qwen2-VL-72B-Instruct 33.5% no CoT Aug 2024 Official leaderboard
11 gpt-4o (snapshot unspecified) 32.7% CoT Official leaderboard
12 SRPO-7B 29.6% no CoT Official leaderboard
13 LLaVA-OneVision 72B 27.3% no CoT Aug 2024 Official leaderboard
14 InternVL2-Llama3-76B 25.1% no CoT Jul 2024 Official leaderboard
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Seed2.1 Pro 79.3% Jun 2026 Lab model card
2 Seed2.0 Pro 72% Feb 2026 Lab model card
3 Seed1.8 60.9% Dec 2025 Lab model card
4 Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking Jan 2025 42.5% no CoT Jan 2025 Official leaderboard
5 Qwen2.5-VL-72B 38.6% no CoT Jan 2025 Official leaderboard
6 InternVL3-78B 34.8% no CoT Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
7 InternVL2_5-78B 33.5% no CoT Dec 2024 Official leaderboard
8 Qwen2-VL-72B-Instruct 33.5% no CoT Aug 2024 Official leaderboard
9 LLaVA-OneVision 72B 27.3% no CoT Aug 2024 Official leaderboard
10 InternVL2-Llama3-76B 25.1% no CoT Jul 2024 Official leaderboard

Labs report scores for 3 models in their cards. 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
Qwen2.5-VL-72B
CoT no CoT
38.6%
InternVL3-78B
CoT
34.8%
InternVL2_5-78B
CoT no CoT
33.5%
Qwen2-VL-72B-Instruct
CoT no CoT
33.5%
LLaVA-OneVision 72B
CoT no CoT
27.3%
InternVL2-Llama3-76B
CoT no CoT
25.1%

Source: Official EMMA leaderboard

ModelEffortHarnessScoreCost per taskOutput tokens
Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking Jan 2025 no CoT 42.5%
Qwen2.5-VL-72B no CoT 38.6%
Qwen2.5-VL-72B CoT 36.1%
InternVL3-78B no CoT 34.8%
InternVL3-78B CoT 33.7%
InternVL2_5-78B no CoT 33.5%
Qwen2-VL-72B-Instruct no CoT 33.5%
LLaVA-OneVision 72B no CoT 27.3%
Qwen2-VL-72B-Instruct CoT 27.1%
InternVL2_5-78B CoT 27.1%
InternVL2-Llama3-76B no CoT 25.1%
LLaVA-OneVision 72B CoT 23.8%
InternVL2-Llama3-76B CoT 23.4%

2 models have held number one on the official leaderboard since its release in January 2025 5 models have held number one with claims included since its release in January 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 Google DeepMind ByteDance Seed
Own leaderboard Not tested since Apr 2025
Lab claims Not tested since Jun 2026
Seed2.1 Pro 79.3%

Sources: Official EMMA 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%) Seed2.1 Pro Seed2.0 Pro Seed1.8 Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking InternVL2_5-78B LLaVA-OneVision 72B 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2025 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Seed2.1 Pro Seed2.0 Pro

Sources: Official EMMA 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.

ByteDance Seed
DateLaunch postScoreAs the post writes it
Dec 18, 2025 Seed1.8 60.9 EMMA

3 system cards report it, from 1 lab

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 79.3 EMMA (Table 9) Capabilities
Mar 21, 2026 Seed1.8 model card 60.9 EMMA (Table 2). 50.1 in No-Think mode (2.4 text) Capabilities
Feb 14, 2026 Seed2.0 Pro model card 72 EMMA (Table 8) Capabilities

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%