Benchmark Almanac

EmoBench-M

Gemini 3 Pro 70.5% leads since November 2025
Not in model cards

Multimodal models are tested on emotional intelligence across 13 scenarios in three dimensions: emotion recognition, conversational emotion understanding and socially complex emotion analysis.

ACM MM 2026. About 155 GitHub stars.

Released
February 2025
Kind
General visual questions
Level
Everyday
Scored
Checked automatically
Answers
Multiple choice
Tasks
All public
Strongest model tested
GPT-5.2 #50 on the capability index
Last model added
December 2025
Scores refreshed
November 12th, 2026

In the authors’ words

With the integration of multimodal large language models (MLLMs) into robotic systems and AI applications, embedding emotional intelligence (EI) capabilities is essential for enabling these models to perceive, interpret, and respond to human emotions effectively in real-world scenarios. Existing static, text-based, or text-image benchmarks overlook the multimodal complexities of real interactions and fail to capture the dynamic, context-dependent nature of emotional expressions, rendering them inadequate for evaluating MLLMs' EI capabilities. To address these limitations, we introduce EmoBench-M, a systematic benchmark grounded in established psychological theories, designed to evaluate MLLMs across 13 evaluation scenarios spanning three hierarchical dimensions: foundational emotion recognition (FER), conversational emotion understanding (CEU), and socially complex emotion analysis (SCEA). Evaluation was conducted on 27 state-of-the-art MLLMs, using both objective task-specific metrics and LLM-based evaluation, revealing a substantial performance gap relative to human-level competence. Even the best performing models, Gemini-3.0-Pro and GPT-5.2, achieve the highest scores on EmoBench-M, 70.5 and 66.5 points respectively. Specialized models such as AffectGPT exhibit uneven performance across EmoBench-M, demonstrating strengths in certain scenarios but generally lacking comprehensive emotional intelligence. By providing a comprehensive, multimodal evaluation framework, EmoBench-M captures both the strengths and weaknesses of current MLLMs across diverse emotional contexts. All benchmark resources, including datasets and code, are publicly available at https://emo-gml.github.io/, facilitating further research and advancement in MLLM emotional intelligence.

Abstract of EmoBench-M: Benchmarking Emotional Intelligence for Multimodal Large Language Models (arXiv:2502.04424, CC0)
26
Entries on its own leaderboard, 15 models we track

Gemini 3 Pro leads with 70.5% among models released by December 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. Names in gray aren't in our model list: fine-tunes, agent systems, products and older models. They don't count toward leaders.

The newest model with a score here came out in December 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 3 Pro 70.5%
  2. 2 GPT-5.2 66.5%
  3. 3 Gemini 3 Flash 65.5%
  4. 4 Gemini 2.0 Flash Feb 2025 62.3%
  5. 5 Gemini-1.5-Flash (snapshot unspecified) 61.3%
  6. 6 Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking Jan 2025 60.6%
  7. 7 Qwen3-VL-Instruct-8B 60.1%
  8. 8 Qwen2.5-VL-72B 57.8%
  9. 9 GLM-4V-PLUS 57.7%
  10. 10 Qwen2.5-VL-32B 56.7%
  11. 11 InternVL2.5-38B 54.4%
  12. 12 Qwen2.5-Omni-7B 53.7%
  13. 13 Qwen2-Audio-7B-Instruct 53%
  14. 14 Qwen2.5-VL-7B 52.9%
  15. 15 InternVL2_5-78B 52.4%
  16. 16 InternVideo2-Chat-8B 51.5%
  17. 17 Video-LLaMA2.1-7B-16F 51.5%
  18. 18 InternVL2.5-4B 50.9%
  19. 19 InternVL2.5-8B 50.4%
  20. 20 Video-LLaMA2-72B 49.9%
  21. 21 Video-LLaMA2.1-7B-AV 48.7%
  22. 22 VideoLLAMA2-7B 47.1%
  23. 23 MiniCPM-V-2.6-8B 46.5%
  24. 24 AffectGPT 43.9%
  25. 25 LongVA-DPO-7B 43.8%
  26. 26 Emotion-LLaMA 40.6%

Source: Official EmoBench-M leaderboard

#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
1 Gemini 3 Pro 70.5% Nov 2025 Official leaderboard
2 GPT-5.2 66.5% Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
3 Gemini 3 Flash 65.5% Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
4 Gemini 2.0 Flash Feb 2025 62.3% Feb 2025 Official leaderboard
5 Gemini-1.5-Flash (snapshot unspecified) 61.3% Official leaderboard
6 Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking Jan 2025 60.6% Jan 2025 Official leaderboard
7 Qwen3-VL-Instruct-8B 60.1% Official leaderboard
8 Qwen2.5-VL-72B 57.8% Jan 2025 Official leaderboard
9 GLM-4V-PLUS 57.7% Official leaderboard
10 Qwen2.5-VL-32B 56.7% Mar 2025 Official leaderboard
11 InternVL2.5-38B 54.4% Dec 2024 Official leaderboard
12 Qwen2.5-Omni-7B 53.7% Mar 2025 Official leaderboard
13 Qwen2-Audio-7B-Instruct 53% Aug 2024 Official leaderboard
14 Qwen2.5-VL-7B 52.9% Jan 2025 Official leaderboard
15 InternVL2_5-78B 52.4% Dec 2024 Official leaderboard
16 InternVideo2-Chat-8B 51.5% Official leaderboard
17 Video-LLaMA2.1-7B-16F 51.5% Official leaderboard
18 InternVL2.5-4B 50.9% Dec 2024 Official leaderboard
19 InternVL2.5-8B 50.4% Dec 2024 Official leaderboard
20 Video-LLaMA2-72B 49.9% Official leaderboard
21 Video-LLaMA2.1-7B-AV 48.7% Official leaderboard
22 VideoLLAMA2-7B 47.1% Jun 2024 Official leaderboard
23 MiniCPM-V-2.6-8B 46.5% Official leaderboard
24 AffectGPT 43.9% Official leaderboard
25 LongVA-DPO-7B 43.8% Official leaderboard
26 Emotion-LLaMA 40.6% Official leaderboard

3 models have held number one on the official leaderboard since its release in February 2025

Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.

Google DeepMind
Own leaderboard Not tested since Dec 2025
Gemini 3 Pro 70.5%

Source: Official EmoBench-M leaderboard

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 Best so far
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2024 2025 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Gemini 3 Pro Gemini 2.0 Flash InternVL2.5-38B VideoLLAMA2-7B 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2024 2025 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Gemini 3 Pro Gemini 2.0 Flash

Source: Official EmoBench-M leaderboard

No lab model card reports it yet

We read the headline results of 522 launch posts from 52 labs, and none of them list this benchmark.

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%