GenAI-Arena Image Editing
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.
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 MagicBrush 1,098
- 2 UltraEdit 1,068
- 3 InfEdit 1,064
- 4 CosXLEdit 1,056
- 5 InstructPix2Pix 1,029
- 6 PNP 993
- 7 Prompt2prompt 984
- 8 CycleDiffusion 936
- 9 SDEdit 919
- 10 Pix2PixZero 855
Source: Official GenAI-Arena Image Editing leaderboard
| # | Entry | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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
- 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%