ImgEdit-Bench
Image editing models carry out edit instructions such as add, remove, replace, style transfer and background change. A GPT-4.1 judge scores each result from 1 to 5.
The benchmark ships with the 1.2 million pair ImgEdit dataset and has basic, hard single-turn and multi-turn suites.
- Released
- May 2025
- Kind
- Image generation and editing
- Level
- Everyday
- Scored
- Graded by a model
- Answers
- Open-ended
- Tasks
- All public
- Last in a system card
- December 2025
- Last model added
- December 2025
- Scores refreshed
- November 12th, 2026
In the authors’ words
Recent advancements in generative models have enabled high-fidelity text-to-image generation. However, open-source image-editing models still lag behind their proprietary counterparts, primarily due to limited high-quality data and insufficient benchmarks. To overcome these limitations, we introduce ImgEdit, a large-scale, high-quality image-editing dataset comprising 1.2 million carefully curated edit pairs, which contain both novel and complex single-turn edits, as well as challenging multi-turn tasks. To ensure the data quality, we employ a multi-stage pipeline that integrates a cutting-edge vision-language model, a detection model, a segmentation model, alongside task-specific in-painting procedures and strict post-processing. ImgEdit surpasses existing datasets in both task novelty and data quality. Using ImgEdit, we train ImgEdit-E1, an editing model using Vision Language Model to process the reference image and editing prompt, which outperforms existing open-source models on multiple tasks, highlighting the value of ImgEdit and model design. For comprehensive evaluation, we introduce ImgEdit-Bench, a benchmark designed to evaluate image editing performance in terms of instruction adherence, editing quality, and detail preservation. It includes a basic testsuite, a challenging single-turn suite, and a dedicated multi-turn suite. We evaluate both open-source and proprietary models, as well as ImgEdit-E1, providing deep analysis and actionable insights into the current behavior of image-editing models. The source data are publicly available on https://github.com/PKU-YuanGroup/ImgEdit.
Nova 2 Omni Preview leads with 4.12
Best score per model as labs report them in their own cards. Labs pick their own settings, so these compare less cleanly than independent runs.
FLUX.1 Kontext [dev] leads with 3.71 across all independent runs
Best score per model across the official leaderboard, Epoch AI’s own runs and any board Epoch AI copied. Each bar and row names its source.
Nova 2 Omni Preview leads with 4.12, 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.
Source: Labs’ model cards
- 1 FLUX.1 Kontext [dev] 3.71
- 2
BAGEL 3.42
- 3
Step1X-Edit 3.06
Source: Official ImgEdit-Bench leaderboard
- 1
Nova 2 Omni Preview 4.12
- 2 FLUX.1 Kontext [dev] 3.71
- 3
BAGEL 3.42
- 4
Step1X-Edit 3.06
Sources: Labs’ model cards and official ImgEdit-Bench leaderboard
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 4.12 | Dec 2025 | Lab model card |
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | FLUX.1 Kontext [dev] | 3.71 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 2 | | 3.42 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 3 | | 3.06 | Official leaderboard |
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 4.12 | Dec 2025 | Lab model card | |
| 2 | FLUX.1 Kontext [dev] | 3.71 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 3 | | 3.42 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 4 | | 3.06 | Official leaderboard |
The benchmark's own leaderboard has 13 entries, 3 of them models we track. Switch the scores above to rank them together.
Scores over time
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
Source: Labs’ model cards
Labs report it only in system cards
We read the headline results of 522 launch posts from 52 labs, and none of them list this benchmark. Some system cards do, below.
One system card reports it
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 2, 2025 | | 4.12 | ImgEdit Overall, GPT-4.1 judge on a 1 to 5 scale, results across reasoning and non-reasoning modes (Table 9) | 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%