EMMA
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.
- Made by
- Hao et al. (EMMA team)
- 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.
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:
- Claude Fable 5.2
-
Gemini 4 Carbon
- GPT-6 Astra
- Claude Opus 5.5
- and 16 more
- 42.5
Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking
- 38.9 VL-Rethinker-72B
- 38.6
Qwen2.5-VL-72B
- 38.2 SRPO-32B
- 38.1 gemini-2.0-flash-thinking-exp-1219 (December 2024 snapshot not cataloged)
- 37.2 claude 3.5 sonnet (snapshot unspecified)
- 34.8
InternVL3-78B
- 33.6 gemini 2.0 flash (snapshot unspecified)
- 33.5
InternVL2_5-78B
- 33.5 Qwen2-VL-72B-Instruct
- 32.7 gpt-4o (snapshot unspecified)
- 29.6 SRPO-7B
- 27.3 LLaVA-OneVision 72B
- 25.1
InternVL2-Llama3-76B
- 1
Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking Jan 2025, no CoT 42.5%
- 2 VL-Rethinker-72B no CoT 38.9%
- 3
Qwen2.5-VL-72B no CoT 38.6%
- 4 SRPO-32B no CoT 38.2%
- 5 gemini-2.0-flash-thinking-exp-1219 (December 2024 snapshot not cataloged) no CoT 38.1%
- 6 claude 3.5 sonnet (snapshot unspecified) CoT 37.2%
- 7
InternVL3-78B no CoT 34.8%
- 8 gemini 2.0 flash (snapshot unspecified) no CoT 33.6%
- 9
InternVL2_5-78B no CoT 33.5%
- 10 Qwen2-VL-72B-Instruct no CoT 33.5%
- 11 gpt-4o (snapshot unspecified) CoT 32.7%
- 12 SRPO-7B no CoT 29.6%
- 13 LLaVA-OneVision 72B no CoT 27.3%
- 14
InternVL2-Llama3-76B no CoT 25.1%
Source: Official EMMA leaderboard
- 1
Seed2.1 Pro 79.3%
- 2
Seed2.0 Pro 72%
- 3
Seed1.8 60.9%
- 4
Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking Jan 2025, no CoT 42.5%
- 5
Qwen2.5-VL-72B no CoT 38.6%
- 6
InternVL3-78B no CoT 34.8%
- 7
InternVL2_5-78B no CoT 33.5%
- 8 Qwen2-VL-72B-Instruct no CoT 33.5%
- 9 LLaVA-OneVision 72B no CoT 27.3%
- 10
InternVL2-Llama3-76B no CoT 25.1%
Sources: Labs’ model cards and official EMMA leaderboard
| # | Entry | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 42.5% | no CoT | Jan 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 2 | VL-Rethinker-72B | 38.9% | no CoT | Official leaderboard | |
| 3 | | 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 | | 34.8% | no CoT | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 8 | gemini 2.0 flash (snapshot unspecified) | 33.6% | no CoT | Official leaderboard | |
| 9 | | 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 | | 25.1% | no CoT | Jul 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 79.3% | Jun 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 2 | | 72% | Feb 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 3 | | 60.9% | Dec 2025 | Lab model card | |
| 4 | | 42.5% | no CoT | Jan 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 5 | | 38.6% | no CoT | Jan 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 6 | | 34.8% | no CoT | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 7 | | 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 | | 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.
Source: Official EMMA leaderboard
| Model | Effort | Harness | Score | Cost per task | Output tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | no CoT | 42.5% | |||
| | no CoT | 38.6% | |||
| | CoT | 36.1% | |||
| | no CoT | 34.8% | |||
| | CoT | 33.7% | |||
| | 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% | |||
| | CoT | 27.1% | |||
| | no CoT | 25.1% | |||
| LLaVA-OneVision 72B | CoT | 23.8% | |||
| | 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.
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.
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.
| Date | Launch post | Score | As the post writes it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 18, 2025 | 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.
| Date | Document | Score | As the document writes it | Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 23, 2026 | | 79.3 | EMMA (Table 9) | Capabilities |
| Mar 21, 2026 | | 60.9 | EMMA (Table 2). 50.1 in No-Think mode (2.4 text) | Capabilities |
| Feb 14, 2026 | | 72 | EMMA (Table 8) | 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%