Benchmark Almanac

Point-Bench

gemini-robotics-er-1.5-preview 67.1% leads since September 2025
Seed2.0 Pro 81.4% leads since February 2026
Fading

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.

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/

Abstract of PointArena: Probing Multimodal Grounding Through Language-Guided Pointing (arXiv:2505.09990, CC0)
17
Models scored on its own leaderboard
1
Launch post lists it, from 1 lab
3
System cards report it, from 2 labs

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:

  1. 1 gemini-robotics-er-1.5-preview 67.1%
  2. 2 Molmo-72B 63.8%
  3. 3 Molmo-7B-O 63.3%
  4. 4 Gemini 2.5 Pro May 2025 62.8%
  5. 5 Molmo-7B-D 61.6%
  6. 6 Qwen2.5-VL-72B 59%
  7. 7 Qwen2.5-VL-32B 59%
  8. 8 Qwen2.5-VL-7B 56.3%
  9. 9 Gemini 2.0 Flash Feb 2025 47%
  10. 10 Gemini 2.5 Flash Apr 2025 47%
  11. 11 o3 43.5%
  12. 12 GPT-4.1 33.3%
  13. 13 GPT-4o Mar 2025 29.5%
  14. 14 Claude 3.7 Sonnet 22.2%
  15. 15 Grok 2 Vision (1212) 20.5%
  16. 16 LLaVA-OneVision 72B 18%
  17. 17 LLaVA-OneVision 7B 6.32%

Source: Official Point-Bench leaderboard

#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 gemini-robotics-er-1.5-preview 67.1% Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
2 Molmo-72B 63.8% Sep 2024 Official leaderboard
3 Molmo-7B-O 63.3% Sep 2024 Official leaderboard
4 Gemini 2.5 Pro May 2025 62.8% May 2025 Official leaderboard
5 Molmo-7B-D 61.6% Sep 2024 Official leaderboard
6 Qwen2.5-VL-72B 59% Jan 2025 Official leaderboard
7 Qwen2.5-VL-32B 59% Mar 2025 Official leaderboard
8 Qwen2.5-VL-7B 56.3% Jan 2025 Official leaderboard
9 Gemini 2.0 Flash Feb 2025 47% Feb 2025 Official leaderboard
10 Gemini 2.5 Flash Apr 2025 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 LLaVA-OneVision 7B 6.32% Aug 2024 Official leaderboard
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Seed2.0 Pro 81.4% Feb 2026 Lab model card
2 Seed1.8 76.5% Dec 2025 Lab model card
3 gemini-robotics-er-1.5-preview 71.6% Sep 2025 Lab model card
4 Molmo-72B 63.8% Sep 2024 Official leaderboard
5 Molmo-7B-O 63.3% Sep 2024 Official leaderboard
6 Gemini 2.5 Pro May 2025 62.8% May 2025 Official leaderboard
7 Molmo-7B-D 61.6% Sep 2024 Official leaderboard
8 Qwen2.5-VL-72B 59% Jan 2025 Official leaderboard
9 Qwen2.5-VL-32B 59% Mar 2025 Official leaderboard
10 Qwen2.5-VL-7B 56.3% Jan 2025 Official leaderboard
11 Gemini 2.0 Flash Feb 2025 47% Feb 2025 Official leaderboard
12 Gemini 2.5 Flash Apr 2025 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 LLaVA-OneVision 7B 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.

Ai2 Google DeepMind ByteDance Seed
Own leaderboard Not tested since Sep 2025
Lab claims Not tested since Mar 2026
Seed2.0 Pro 81.4%

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.

On the benchmark’s own leaderboard Reported by the lab in its model card Best so far
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2025 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Seed2.0 Pro Seed1.8 gemini-robotics-er-1.5-preview Molmo-72B LLaVA-OneVision 72B 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2025 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Seed2.0 Pro gemini-robotics-er-1.5-preview

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.

ByteDance Seed
DateLaunch postScoreAs the post writes it
Dec 18, 2025 Seed1.8 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.

DateDocumentScoreAs the document writes itSection
Mar 21, 2026 Seed1.8 model card 76.5 Point-Bench (Table 2) Capabilities
Feb 14, 2026 Seed2.0 Pro model card 81.4 Point-Bench (Table 8) Capabilities
Sep 25, 2025 gemini-robotics-er-1.5-preview technical report 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
gemini-robotics-er-1.5-preview 71.6% Point-Bench (Table 19, thinking on). Thinking off 73.3 67.1% Leaderboard +4.5 pts

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%