Benchmark Almanac

GenAI-Arena Image Generation

Not in model cards

Models generate images from text prompts. 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
Scores refreshed
November 12th, 2026

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)
17
Entries on its own leaderboard, 1 model we track

FLUX.1 [dev] leads with 1,133

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 700.

  1. 1 FLUX.1 [dev] 1,133
  2. 2 PlayGround V2.5 1,117
  3. 3 FLUX.1-schnell 1,094
  4. 4 PlayGround V2 1,072
  5. 5 Kolors 1,061
  6. 6 StableCascade 1,043
  7. 7 HunyuanDiT 1,022
  8. 8 PixArtAlpha 1,018
  9. 9 PixArtSigma 1,017
  10. 10 SDXL-Lightning 1,014
  11. 11 SD3 1,006
  12. 12 AuraFlow 994
  13. 13 SDXL 967
  14. 14 SDXLTurbo 915
  15. 15 LCM(v1.5/XL) 905
  16. 16 OpenJourney 832
  17. 17 LCM 790

Source: Official GenAI-Arena Image Generation leaderboard

#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
1 FLUX.1 [dev] 1,133 Official leaderboard
2 PlayGround V2.5 1,117 Official leaderboard
3 FLUX.1-schnell 1,094 Official leaderboard
4 PlayGround V2 1,072 Official leaderboard
5 Kolors 1,061 Official leaderboard
6 StableCascade 1,043 Official leaderboard
7 HunyuanDiT 1,022 Official leaderboard
8 PixArtAlpha 1,018 Official leaderboard
9 PixArtSigma 1,017 Official leaderboard
10 SDXL-Lightning 1,014 Official leaderboard
11 SD3 1,006 Official leaderboard
12 AuraFlow 994 Official leaderboard
13 SDXL 967 Official leaderboard
14 SDXLTurbo 915 Official leaderboard
15 LCM(v1.5/XL) 905 Official leaderboard
16 OpenJourney 832 Official leaderboard
17 LCM 790 Official leaderboard

Scores over time

All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.

No dated values yet.

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%