Benchmark Almanac

UltraText Bench

Not in model cards

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.

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.

Abstract of UltraText Bench: A Comprehensive Bilingual Benchmark for Evaluating Visual Text Rendering in Image Generation (arXiv:2610.09823, CC0)
24
Entries on its own leaderboard, 16 models we track

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.

  1. 1 GPT-Image-2 API quality Low 99.3
  2. 2 Nano Banana 2 97.0
  3. 3 Seedream 5.0 Pro 91.5
  4. 4 Qwen-Image-2.0-Pro 90.2
  5. 5 Qwen-Image-3.0 88.3
  6. 6 Wan 2.7 Image Pro 85.7
  7. 7 Boogu-Image-0.1-Base 77.9
  8. 8 Qwen-Image (2512) 68.0
  9. 9 Boogu-Image-0.1-Turbo 67.8
  10. 10 Z-Image-Base 61.9
  11. 11 GPT-Image-1.5 API quality High 58.0
  12. 12 Z-Image-Turbo 54.4
  13. 13 HiDream-O1-Image 45.6
  14. 14 LLaDA-Image 43.9
  15. 15 LLaDA-Image-Turbo 41.3
  16. 16 Qwen-Image 41.3
  17. 17 FLUX.2 [dev] 41.0
  18. 18 HiDream-O1-Image-Dev 40.4
  19. 19 GPT-Image-1 API quality High 37.9
  20. 20 HunyuanImage 3.0 29.9
  21. 21 FLUX.2 [klein] 9B 22.9
  22. 22 FLUX.2 [klein] 4B 19.6
  23. 23 FLUX.1 [dev] 18.2
  24. 24 Stable Diffusion 3.5 Large 7.48

Source: Official UltraText Bench leaderboard

#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
1 GPT-Image-2 99.3 API quality Low Official leaderboard
2 Nano Banana 2 97.0 Official leaderboard
3 Seedream 5.0 Pro 91.5 Official leaderboard
4 Qwen-Image-2.0-Pro 90.2 Official leaderboard
5 Qwen-Image-3.0 88.3 Official leaderboard
6 Wan 2.7 Image Pro 85.7 Official leaderboard
7 Boogu-Image-0.1-Base 77.9 Official leaderboard
8 Qwen-Image (2512) 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 Z-Image-Turbo 54.4 Official leaderboard
13 HiDream-O1-Image 45.6 Official leaderboard
14 LLaDA-Image 43.9 Official leaderboard
15 LLaDA-Image-Turbo 41.3 Official leaderboard
16 Qwen-Image 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 HunyuanImage 3.0 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 Stable Diffusion 3.5 Large 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

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%