Point-Bench
Models point to the image location a language request describes, in about 1,000 tasks across five reasoning categories. A point inside the target mask counts as correct.
Part of PointArena with the Point-Battle voting arena and the Point-Act robot setup. The mask rule is an assumption from the task design.
- Made by
- Cheng et al. (PointArena team)
- Released
- May 2025
- Kind
- Detection and captioning
- Level
- Everyday
- Scored
- Checked automatically
- Answers
- Short answer
- Tasks
- All public
- Strongest model tested
- o3 #83 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
Pointing serves as a fundamental and intuitive mechanism for grounding language within visual contexts, with applications spanning robotics, assistive technologies, and interactive AI systems. While recent multimodal models have started to support pointing capabilities, existing benchmarks typically focus only on referential object localization tasks. We introduce PointArena, a comprehensive platform for evaluating multimodal pointing across diverse reasoning scenarios. PointArena comprises three components: (1) Point-Bench, a curated dataset containing approximately 1,000 pointing tasks across five reasoning categories; (2) Point-Battle, an interactive, web-based arena facilitating blind, pairwise model comparisons, which has already gathered over 4,500 anonymized votes; and (3) Point-Act, a real-world robotic manipulation system allowing users to directly evaluate multimodal model pointing capabilities in practical settings. We conducted extensive evaluations of both state-of-the-art open-source and proprietary multimodal models. Results indicate that Molmo-72B consistently outperforms other models, though proprietary models increasingly demonstrate comparable performance. Additionally, we find that supervised training specifically targeting pointing tasks significantly enhances model performance. Across our multi-stage evaluation pipeline, we also observe strong correlations, underscoring the critical role of precise pointing capabilities in enabling multimodal models to effectively bridge abstract reasoning with concrete, real-world actions. Project page: https://pointarena.github.io/
gemini-robotics-er-1.5-preview leads with 67.1% among models released by September 2025
Best score per model from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on November 12th, 2026. Where a model ran with several settings or harnesses, we keep its best.
Seed2.0 Pro leads with 81.4%, 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 September 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
- 67.1
gemini-robotics-er-1.5-preview
- 63.8
Molmo-72B
- 63.3
Molmo-7B-O
- 62.8
Gemini 2.5 Pro
- 61.6
Molmo-7B-D
- 59.0
Qwen2.5-VL-72B
- 59.0
Qwen2.5-VL-32B
- 56.3
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
- 47.0
Gemini 2.0 Flash
- 47.0
Gemini 2.5 Flash
- 43.5 o3
- 33.3 GPT-4.1
- 29.5 GPT-4o
- 22.2 Claude 3.7 Sonnet
- 20.5 Grok 2 Vision (1212)
- 18.0 LLaVA-OneVision 72B
- 6.32
LLaVA-OneVision 7B
- 1
gemini-robotics-er-1.5-preview 67.1%
- 2
Molmo-72B 63.8%
- 3
Molmo-7B-O 63.3%
- 4
Gemini 2.5 Pro May 2025 62.8%
- 5
Molmo-7B-D 61.6%
- 6
Qwen2.5-VL-72B 59%
- 7
Qwen2.5-VL-32B 59%
- 8
Qwen2.5-VL-7B 56.3%
- 9
Gemini 2.0 Flash Feb 2025 47%
- 10
Gemini 2.5 Flash Apr 2025 47%
- 11 o3 43.5%
- 12 GPT-4.1 33.3%
- 13 GPT-4o Mar 2025 29.5%
- 14 Claude 3.7 Sonnet 22.2%
- 15 Grok 2 Vision (1212) 20.5%
- 16 LLaVA-OneVision 72B 18%
- 17
LLaVA-OneVision 7B 6.32%
Source: Official Point-Bench leaderboard
- 81.4
Seed2.0 Pro
- 76.5
Seed1.8
- 71.6
gemini-robotics-er-1.5-preview
- 63.8
Molmo-72B
- 63.3
Molmo-7B-O
- 62.8
Gemini 2.5 Pro
- 61.6
Molmo-7B-D
- 59.0
Qwen2.5-VL-72B
- 59.0
Qwen2.5-VL-32B
- 56.3
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
- 47.0
Gemini 2.0 Flash
- 47.0
Gemini 2.5 Flash
- 43.5 o3
- 33.3 GPT-4.1
- 29.5 GPT-4o
- 22.2 Claude 3.7 Sonnet
- 20.5 Grok 2 Vision (1212)
- 18.0 LLaVA-OneVision 72B
- 6.32
LLaVA-OneVision 7B
- 1
Seed2.0 Pro 81.4%
- 2
Seed1.8 76.5%
- 3
gemini-robotics-er-1.5-preview 71.6%
- 4
Molmo-72B 63.8%
- 5
Molmo-7B-O 63.3%
- 6
Gemini 2.5 Pro May 2025 62.8%
- 7
Molmo-7B-D 61.6%
- 8
Qwen2.5-VL-72B 59%
- 9
Qwen2.5-VL-32B 59%
- 10
Qwen2.5-VL-7B 56.3%
- 11
Gemini 2.0 Flash Feb 2025 47%
- 12
Gemini 2.5 Flash Apr 2025 47%
- 13 o3 43.5%
- 14 GPT-4.1 33.3%
- 15 GPT-4o Mar 2025 29.5%
- 16 Claude 3.7 Sonnet 22.2%
- 17 Grok 2 Vision (1212) 20.5%
- 18 LLaVA-OneVision 72B 18%
- 19
LLaVA-OneVision 7B 6.32%
Sources: Labs’ model cards and official Point-Bench leaderboard
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 67.1% | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 2 | | 63.8% | Sep 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 3 | | 63.3% | Sep 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 4 | | 62.8% | May 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 5 | | 61.6% | Sep 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 6 | | 59% | Jan 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 7 | | 59% | Mar 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 8 | | 56.3% | Jan 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 9 | | 47% | Feb 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 10 | | 47% | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 11 | o3 | 43.5% | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 12 | GPT-4.1 | 33.3% | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 13 | GPT-4o Mar 2025 | 29.5% | Mar 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 14 | Claude 3.7 Sonnet | 22.2% | Feb 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 15 | Grok 2 Vision (1212) | 20.5% | Dec 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 16 | LLaVA-OneVision 72B | 18% | Aug 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 17 | | 6.32% | Aug 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 81.4% | Feb 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 2 | | 76.5% | Dec 2025 | Lab model card | |
| 3 | | 71.6% | Sep 2025 | Lab model card | |
| 4 | | 63.8% | Sep 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 5 | | 63.3% | Sep 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 6 | | 62.8% | May 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 7 | | 61.6% | Sep 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 8 | | 59% | Jan 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 9 | | 59% | Mar 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 10 | | 56.3% | Jan 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 11 | | 47% | Feb 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 12 | | 47% | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 13 | o3 | 43.5% | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 14 | GPT-4.1 | 33.3% | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 15 | GPT-4o Mar 2025 | 29.5% | Mar 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 16 | Claude 3.7 Sonnet | 22.2% | Feb 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 17 | Grok 2 Vision (1212) | 20.5% | Dec 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 18 | LLaVA-OneVision 72B | 18% | Aug 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 19 | | 6.32% | Aug 2024 | Official leaderboard |
Labs report scores for 3 models in their cards. Switch the scores above to rank them together.
2 models have held number one on the official leaderboard since its release in May 2025 4 models have held number one with claims included since its release in May 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 Point-Bench 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 Point-Bench 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 | 76.5 | Point-Bench |
3 system cards report it, from 2 labs
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 | | 76.5 | Point-Bench (Table 2) | Capabilities |
| Feb 14, 2026 | | 81.4 | Point-Bench (Table 8) | Capabilities |
| Sep 25, 2025 | | 71.6 | Point-Bench (Table 19, thinking on). Thinking off 73.3 | Capabilities |
One lab claim next to the leaderboard
Each score a lab reported for its own model, beside the same model's best score on the leaderboard. Gaps mostly come from different harnesses, effort levels and task subsets. Every benchmark.
| Model | Lab says | Board says | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| | 71.6% Point-Bench (Table 19, thinking on). Thinking off 73.3 | 67.1% Leaderboard | +4.5 pts |
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%