Benchmark Almanac

MeasureBench Synthetic

Seed2.0 Pro 39.2% leads since February 2026
Not in model cards

Models read values and units from generated instrument images. The score is the published overall measurement accuracy.

One track of MeasureBench. The MeasureBench record keeps lab scores that combine tracks.

Released
October 2025
Kind
General visual questions
Level
Everyday
Scored
Checked automatically
Answers
Short answer
Tasks
All public
Strongest model tested
GPT-5.4 #27 on the capability index
Last model added
March 2026
Scores refreshed
November 12th, 2026

In the authors’ words

Reading measurement instruments is effortless for humans and requires relatively little domain expertise, yet it remains surprisingly challenging for current vision-language models (VLMs) as we find in preliminary evaluation. In this work, we introduce MeasureBench, a benchmark on visual measurement reading covering both real-world and synthesized images of various types of measurements, along with an extensible pipeline for data synthesis. Our pipeline procedurally generates a specified type of gauge with controllable visual appearance, enabling scalable variation in key details such as pointers, scales, fonts, lighting, and clutter. Evaluation on popular proprietary and open-weight VLMs shows that even the strongest frontier VLMs struggle with measurement reading in general. We have also conducted preliminary experiments with reinforcement finetuning (RFT) over synthetic data, and find a significant improvement on both in-domain synthetic subset and real-world images. Our analysis highlights a fundamental limitation of current VLMs in fine-grained spatial grounding. We hope this resource and our code releases can help future advances on visually grounded numeracy and precise spatial perception of VLMs, bridging the gap between recognizing numbers and measuring the world.

Abstract of Do Vision-Language Models Measure Up? Benchmarking Visual Measurement Reading with MeasureBench (arXiv:2510.26865, CC0)
23
Entries on its own leaderboard, 19 models we track

Seed2.0 Pro leads with 39.2% among models released by March 2026

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 March 2026, and nobody has tested a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:

  1. 1 Seed2.0 Pro 39.2%
  2. 2 GPT-5.4 38.4%
  3. 3 Gemini 3.1 Pro 33.2%
  4. 4 Gemini-2.5-Pro (snapshot unspecified) 26.3%
  5. 5 Qwen3-VL-235B 19%
  6. 6 Claude Sonnet 4.6 18.5%
  7. 7 Gemini-2.5-Flash (snapshot unspecified) 18.1%
  8. 8 GPT-5 mini 17.9%
  9. 9 Claude Opus 4.6 17%
  10. 10 GPT-5 16.9%
  11. 11 Claude Opus 4.1 13.3%
  12. 12 InternVL3.5-38B 12.6%
  13. 13 Llama 4 Maverick 12.1%
  14. 14 Qwen2.5-VL-72B 11.7%
  15. 15 Qwen3-VL-8B 11.4%
  16. 16 Claude Sonnet 4 11%
  17. 17 Qwen2.5-VL-7B 10.9%
  18. 18 Qwen2.5-VL-32B 10.5%
  19. 19 Llama 4 Scout 9.10%
  20. 20 Mistral Medium 3.1 8.50%
  21. 21 InternVL3.5-8B 7.70%
  22. 22 Mistral Small 3.2 6.50%
  23. 23 Grok 4 6.20%

Source: Official MeasureBench Synthetic leaderboard

#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
1 Seed2.0 Pro 39.2% Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
2 GPT-5.4 38.4% Mar 2026 Official leaderboard
3 Gemini 3.1 Pro 33.2% Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
4 Gemini-2.5-Pro (snapshot unspecified) 26.3% Official leaderboard
5 Qwen3-VL-235B 19% Official leaderboard
6 Claude Sonnet 4.6 18.5% Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
7 Gemini-2.5-Flash (snapshot unspecified) 18.1% Official leaderboard
8 GPT-5 mini 17.9% Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
9 Claude Opus 4.6 17% Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
10 GPT-5 16.9% Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
11 Claude Opus 4.1 13.3% Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
12 InternVL3.5-38B 12.6% Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
13 Llama 4 Maverick 12.1% Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
14 Qwen2.5-VL-72B 11.7% Jan 2025 Official leaderboard
15 Qwen3-VL-8B 11.4% Official leaderboard
16 Claude Sonnet 4 11% May 2025 Official leaderboard
17 Qwen2.5-VL-7B 10.9% Jan 2025 Official leaderboard
18 Qwen2.5-VL-32B 10.5% Mar 2025 Official leaderboard
19 Llama 4 Scout 9.10% Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
20 Mistral Medium 3.1 8.50% Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
21 InternVL3.5-8B 7.70% Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
22 Mistral Small 3.2 6.50% Jun 2025 Official leaderboard
23 Grok 4 6.20% Jul 2025 Official leaderboard

2 models have held number one on the official leaderboard since its release in October 2025

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

OpenAI ByteDance Seed
Own leaderboard Not tested since Mar 2026
Seed2.0 Pro 39.2%

Source: Official MeasureBench Synthetic 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% 2025 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Seed2.0 Pro GPT-5 mini Claude Opus 4.1 Llama 4 Maverick 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2025 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Seed2.0 Pro GPT-5 mini

Source: Official MeasureBench Synthetic 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%