MME-CC
Models answer 1,173 expert-annotated vision-grounded questions in 11 task types grouped as spatial, geometric and visual knowledge reasoning.
The release covered 16 models. The scoring field is a guess from the abstract.
- Made by
- ByteDance Seed and collaborators (Zhang et al.)
- Released
- November 2025
- Kind
- Spatial reasoning and counting
- Level
- Everyday
- Scored
- Checked automatically
- Answers
- Short answer
- Strongest model tested
- GPT-5 #70 on the capability index
- Last in a launch post
- December 2025, dropped before it saturated
- Last model added
- March 2026
- Scores refreshed
- November 12th, 2026
In the authors’ words
As reasoning models scale rapidly, the essential role of multimodality in human cognition has come into sharp relief, driving a growing need to probe vision-centric cognitive behaviors. Yet, existing multimodal benchmarks either overemphasize textual reasoning or fall short of systematically capturing vision-centric cognitive behaviors, leaving the cognitive capacity of MLLMs insufficiently assessed. To address this limitation, we introduce MME-CC (Multi-Modal Evaluation benchmark of Cognitive Capacity), a vision-grounded benchmark that organizes 11 representative reasoning tasks into three fundamental categories of visual information: spatial, geometric, and knowledge-based reasoning, and provides fine-grained analyses of MLLMs' cognitive capacity across these dimensions. Based on MME-CC, we conduct extensive experiments over 16 representative MLLMs. Our study reveals that closed-source models currently lead overall (e.g., 42.66 for Gemini-2.5-Pro vs. 30.45 for GLM-4.5V), while spatial and geometric reasoning remain broadly weak (less than or equal to 30%). We further identify common error patterns, including orientation mistakes, fragile cross-view identity persistence, and poor adherence to counterfactual instructions, and observe that Chain-of-Thought typically follows a three-stage process (extract -> reason -> verify) with heavy reliance on visual extraction. We hope this work catalyzes a shift toward treating the cognitive capacity of MLLMs as central to both evaluation and model design.
Gemini-2.5-Pro [snapshot unspecified] tops the leaderboard with 42.7%
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 best model we track is GPT-5, at 40.3%.
Seed2.0 Pro leads with 57%, 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.
The newest model with a score here came out in August 2025, and nobody has tested a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:
- Claude Fable 5.2
-
Gemini 4 Carbon
- GPT-6 Astra
- Claude Opus 5.5
- and 16 more
- 42.7 Gemini-2.5-Pro [snapshot unspecified]
- 40.3 GPT-5
- 40.1 Doubao-Seed-1.6-vision-0815
- 37.6 Gemini-2.5-Flash [snapshot unspecified]
- 35.0 o4-mini
- 32.1 GPT-4.1
- 30.4 GLM-4.5V
- 26.9 GPT-4o
- 23.6
Qwen2.5-VL-72B
- 20.9 MiMo-VL-7B-RL
- 19.3 GLM-4.1V-9B-Thinking
- 14.4
Qwen2.5-VL-32B
- 11.4
InternVL3-8B
- 9.65
Keye-VL-8B-Preview
- 7.50
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
- 1 Gemini-2.5-Pro [snapshot unspecified] 42.7%
- 2 GPT-5 high 40.3%
- 3 Doubao-Seed-1.6-vision-0815 think 40.1%
- 4 Gemini-2.5-Flash [snapshot unspecified] 37.6%
- 5 o4-mini high 35%
- 6 GPT-4.1 32.1%
- 7 GLM-4.5V 30.4%
- 8 GPT-4o Nov 2024 26.9%
- 9
Qwen2.5-VL-72B 23.6%
- 10 MiMo-VL-7B-RL 20.9%
- 11 GLM-4.1V-9B-Thinking 19.3%
- 12
Qwen2.5-VL-32B 14.4%
- 13
InternVL3-8B 11.4%
- 14
Keye-VL-8B-Preview 9.65%
- 15
Qwen2.5-VL-7B 7.50%
Source: Official MME-CC leaderboard
- 1
Seed2.0 Pro 57%
- 2
Seed1.8 43.4%
- 3 GPT-5 high 40.3%
- 4 o4-mini high 35%
- 5 GPT-4.1 32.1%
- 6 GLM-4.5V 30.4%
- 7 GPT-4o Nov 2024 26.9%
- 8
Qwen2.5-VL-72B 23.6%
- 9 MiMo-VL-7B-RL 20.9%
- 10 GLM-4.1V-9B-Thinking 19.3%
- 11
Qwen2.5-VL-32B 14.4%
- 12
InternVL3-8B 11.4%
- 13
Keye-VL-8B-Preview 9.65%
- 14
Qwen2.5-VL-7B 7.50%
Sources: Labs’ model cards and official MME-CC leaderboard
| # | Entry | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gemini-2.5-Pro [snapshot unspecified] | 42.7% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 2 | GPT-5 | 40.3% | high | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 3 | Doubao-Seed-1.6-vision-0815 | 40.1% | think | Official leaderboard | |
| 4 | Gemini-2.5-Flash [snapshot unspecified] | 37.6% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 5 | o4-mini | 35% | high | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 6 | GPT-4.1 | 32.1% | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 7 | GLM-4.5V | 30.4% | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 8 | GPT-4o Nov 2024 | 26.9% | Nov 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 9 | | 23.6% | Jan 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 10 | MiMo-VL-7B-RL | 20.9% | May 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 11 | GLM-4.1V-9B-Thinking | 19.3% | Jul 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 12 | | 14.4% | Mar 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 13 | | 11.4% | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 14 | | 9.65% | Jun 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 15 | | 7.50% | Jan 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 57% | Feb 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 2 | | 43.4% | Dec 2025 | Lab model card | |
| 3 | GPT-5 | 40.3% | high | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 4 | o4-mini | 35% | high | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 5 | GPT-4.1 | 32.1% | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 6 | GLM-4.5V | 30.4% | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 7 | GPT-4o Nov 2024 | 26.9% | Nov 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 8 | | 23.6% | Jan 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 9 | MiMo-VL-7B-RL | 20.9% | May 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 10 | GLM-4.1V-9B-Thinking | 19.3% | Jul 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 11 | | 14.4% | Mar 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 12 | | 11.4% | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 13 | | 9.65% | Jun 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 14 | | 7.50% | Jan 2025 | Official leaderboard |
Labs report scores for 2 models in their cards. Switch the scores above to rank them together.
Number one over time 3 models have held number one with claims included since its release in November 2025
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release. We draw one row each for the benchmark’s own leaderboard and what labs claim in their cards.
Sources: Official MME-CC leaderboard and labs’ model cards
Scores over time
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
Sources: Official MME-CC leaderboard and labs’ model cards
Labs headline it less often now, last in December 2025
Launch posts from every lab that has listed it, one tick per post. Tall colored ticks include it, and short gray ones leave it out.
| Date | Launch post | Score | As the post writes it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 18, 2025 | 43.4 | MME-CC |
2 system cards report it, from 1 lab
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 21, 2026 | | 43.4 | MME-CC (Table 2) | Capabilities |
| Feb 14, 2026 | | 57 | MME-CC (Table 8) | 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%