Benchmark Almanac

GenAI-Arena Image Editing

MagicBrush 1,098 tops its leaderboard
Not in model cards

Models edit images from user instructions. Anonymous human comparisons determine Elo in this independent vote pool.

Full-vote Elo remains an auxiliary metric. This board keeps anonymous votes separate from other GenAI-Arena tasks.

Released
June 2024
Kind
Image generation and editing
Level
Everyday
Scored
Ranked by votes
Answers
Open-ended
Tasks
All public

In the authors’ words

Generative AI has made remarkable strides to revolutionize fields such as image and video generation. These advancements are driven by innovative algorithms, architecture, and data. However, the rapid proliferation of generative models has highlighted a critical gap: the absence of trustworthy evaluation metrics. Current automatic assessments such as FID, CLIP, FVD, etc often fail to capture the nuanced quality and user satisfaction associated with generative outputs. This paper proposes an open platform GenAI-Arena to evaluate different image and video generative models, where users can actively participate in evaluating these models. By leveraging collective user feedback and votes, GenAI-Arena aims to provide a more democratic and accurate measure of model performance. It covers three tasks of text-to-image generation, text-to-video generation, and image editing respectively. Currently, we cover a total of 35 open-source generative models. GenAI-Arena has been operating for seven months, amassing over 9000 votes from the community. We describe our platform, analyze the data, and explain the statistical methods for ranking the models. To further promote the research in building model-based evaluation metrics, we release a cleaned version of our preference data for the three tasks, namely GenAI-Bench. We prompt the existing multi-modal models like Gemini, and GPT-4o to mimic human voting. We compute the accuracy by comparing the model voting with the human voting to understand their judging abilities. Our results show existing multimodal models are still lagging in assessing the generated visual content, even the best model GPT-4o only achieves an average accuracy of 49.19 across the three generative tasks. Open-source MLLMs perform even worse due to the lack of instruction-following and reasoning ability in complex vision scenarios.

Abstract of GenAI Arena: An Open Evaluation Platform for Generative Models (arXiv:2406.04485, CC0)
10
Entries on its own leaderboard, 0 models we track

MagicBrush tops the leaderboard with 1,098

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.

Bars start at 850.

  1. 1 MagicBrush 1,098
  2. 2 UltraEdit 1,068
  3. 3 InfEdit 1,064
  4. 4 CosXLEdit 1,056
  5. 5 InstructPix2Pix 1,029
  6. 6 PNP 993
  7. 7 Prompt2prompt 984
  8. 8 CycleDiffusion 936
  9. 9 SDEdit 919
  10. 10 Pix2PixZero 855

Source: Official GenAI-Arena Image Editing leaderboard

#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
1 MagicBrush 1,098 Official leaderboard
2 UltraEdit 1,068 Official leaderboard
3 InfEdit 1,064 Official leaderboard
4 CosXLEdit 1,056 Official leaderboard
5 InstructPix2Pix 1,029 Official leaderboard
6 PNP 993 Official leaderboard
7 Prompt2prompt 984 Official leaderboard
8 CycleDiffusion 936 Official leaderboard
9 SDEdit 919 Official leaderboard
10 Pix2PixZero 855 Official 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%