UltraText Bench
Image generators render dense bilingual text in many regions from 432 prompts. Scores check string accuracy, placement and legibility.
42 upvotes on Hugging Face papers and 113 GitHub stars.
- Made by
- Westlake University
- Released
- October 2026
- Kind
- General visual questions
- Level
- Everyday
- Scored
- Checked automatically
- Answers
- Open-ended
- Tasks
- All public
- Scores refreshed
- November 12th, 2026
In the authors’ words
Dense visual text requires image generators to reproduce long strings across multiple regions with correct placement and legibility. As short-string rendering improves, evaluation must test sustained performance across more demanding scenes. We introduce UltraText Bench, a bilingual benchmark for prompt-only generation of dense visual text. It contains 432 prompts spanning 24 real-world scene categories and three difficulty levels, split equally between English and Chinese. Each human-reviewed prompt supplies exact strings for four to twelve text regions, paired with structured references for their content, placement, and visual attributes. We use the Q-Judger vision-language model to assess each image against the complete reference, reporting text fidelity, text clarity, spatial quality, and scene quality. Across 24 model configurations, these dimensions reveal different strengths: Z-Image-Turbo gains 3.81 clarity points over Z-Image-Base while losing 14.76 fidelity points under the reported settings. Performance also varies with workload; Qwen-Image-2512's English composite falls from 86.50 at L1 to 42.86 at L3. Ten participants took part in human evaluation of the automatic scores. Repository: https://github.com/LINs-lab/UltraText_Bench.
GPT-Image-2 leads with 99.3
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.
- 99.3 GPT-Image-2
- 97.0 Nano Banana 2
- 91.5
Seedream 5.0 Pro
- 90.2
Qwen-Image-2.0-Pro
- 88.3 Qwen-Image-3.0
- 85.7
Wan 2.7 Image Pro
- 77.9 Boogu-Image-0.1-Base
- 68.0
Qwen-Image (2512)
- 67.8 Boogu-Image-0.1-Turbo
- 61.9 Z-Image-Base
- 58.0 GPT-Image-1.5
- 54.4
Z-Image-Turbo
- 45.6
HiDream-O1-Image
- 43.9 LLaDA-Image
- 41.3 LLaDA-Image-Turbo
- 41.3
Qwen-Image
- 41.0 FLUX.2 [dev]
- 40.4 HiDream-O1-Image-Dev
- 37.9 GPT-Image-1
- 29.9
HunyuanImage 3.0
- 22.9 FLUX.2 [klein] 9B
- 19.6 FLUX.2 [klein] 4B
- 18.2 FLUX.1 [dev]
- 7.48
Stable Diffusion 3.5 Large
- 1 GPT-Image-2 API quality Low 99.3
- 2 Nano Banana 2 97.0
- 3
Seedream 5.0 Pro 91.5
- 4
Qwen-Image-2.0-Pro 90.2
- 5 Qwen-Image-3.0 88.3
- 6
Wan 2.7 Image Pro 85.7
- 7 Boogu-Image-0.1-Base 77.9
- 8
Qwen-Image (2512) 68.0
- 9 Boogu-Image-0.1-Turbo 67.8
- 10 Z-Image-Base 61.9
- 11 GPT-Image-1.5 API quality High 58.0
- 12
Z-Image-Turbo 54.4
- 13
HiDream-O1-Image 45.6
- 14 LLaDA-Image 43.9
- 15 LLaDA-Image-Turbo 41.3
- 16
Qwen-Image 41.3
- 17 FLUX.2 [dev] 41.0
- 18 HiDream-O1-Image-Dev 40.4
- 19 GPT-Image-1 API quality High 37.9
- 20
HunyuanImage 3.0 29.9
- 21 FLUX.2 [klein] 9B 22.9
- 22 FLUX.2 [klein] 4B 19.6
- 23 FLUX.1 [dev] 18.2
- 24
Stable Diffusion 3.5 Large 7.48
Source: Official UltraText Bench leaderboard
| # | Entry | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | GPT-Image-2 | 99.3 | API quality Low | Official leaderboard | |
| 2 | Nano Banana 2 | 97.0 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 3 | | 91.5 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 4 | | 90.2 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 5 | Qwen-Image-3.0 | 88.3 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 6 | | 85.7 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 7 | Boogu-Image-0.1-Base | 77.9 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 8 | | 68.0 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 9 | Boogu-Image-0.1-Turbo | 67.8 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 10 | Z-Image-Base | 61.9 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 11 | GPT-Image-1.5 | 58.0 | API quality High | Official leaderboard | |
| 12 | | 54.4 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 13 | | 45.6 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 14 | LLaDA-Image | 43.9 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 15 | LLaDA-Image-Turbo | 41.3 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 16 | | 41.3 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 17 | FLUX.2 [dev] | 41.0 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 18 | HiDream-O1-Image-Dev | 40.4 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 19 | GPT-Image-1 | 37.9 | API quality High | Official leaderboard | |
| 20 | | 29.9 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 21 | FLUX.2 [klein] 9B | 22.9 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 22 | FLUX.2 [klein] 4B | 19.6 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 23 | FLUX.1 [dev] | 18.2 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 24 | | 7.48 | Official leaderboard |
Scores over time
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
No dated values yet.
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
- 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%