Benchmark Almanac

VisuLogic

Seed2.1 Pro 54.3% leads since June 2026
Seed1.5-VL 35% leads since May 2025
Seed2.1 Pro 54.3% leads since June 2026
Fading

Models answer 1,000 visual reasoning puzzles in six categories that cannot be solved by describing the image in words. Scored by accuracy.

The paper reports human accuracy near 51 percent and most models near the 25 percent chance level.

Released
April 2025
Kind
Spatial reasoning and counting
Level
Everyday
Scored
Checked automatically
Answers
Multiple choice
Tasks
All public
Strongest model tested
o3 #83 on the capability index
Last in a launch post
February 2026, dropped before it saturated
Last model added
June 2026
Scores refreshed
November 12th, 2026

In the authors’ words

Visual reasoning is a core component of human intelligence and a critical capability for advanced multimodal models. Yet current reasoning evaluations of multimodal large language models (MLLMs) often rely on text descriptions and allow language-based reasoning shortcuts, failing to measure genuine vision-centric reasoning. To address this, we introduce VisuLogic: a benchmark of 1,000 human-verified problems across six categories (e.g., quantitative shifts, spatial relations, attribute comparisons). These various types of questions can be evaluated to assess the visual reasoning capabilities of MLLMs from multiple perspectives. We evaluate leading MLLMs on this benchmark and analyze their results to identify common failure modes. Most models score below 30% accuracy-only slightly above the 25% random baseline and far below the 51.4% achieved by humans-revealing significant gaps in visual reasoning. Furthermore, we provide a supplementary training dataset and a reinforcement-learning baseline to support further progress.

Abstract of VisuLogic: A Benchmark for Evaluating Visual Reasoning in Multi-modal Large Language Models (arXiv:2504.15279, CC0)
7
Models scored in lab cards
5
Launch posts list it, from 3 labs
6
System cards report it, from 4 labs

Seed2.1 Pro leads with 54.3% among models released by June 2026

Best score per model as labs report them in their own cards. Labs pick their own settings, so these compare less cleanly than independent runs.

Seed1.5-VL leads with 35% across all independent runs

Best score per model across the official leaderboard, Epoch AI’s own runs and any board Epoch AI copied. Each bar and row names its source.

Seed2.1 Pro leads with 54.3%, 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 June 2026, and nobody has reported a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:

  1. 1 Seed2.1 Pro 54.3%
  2. 2 Seed2.0 Pro 47.4%
  3. 3 Seed1.5-VL 35%
  4. 4 Qwen3-VL-235B-A22B 34.4%
  5. 5 ERNIE 5.0 32%
  6. 6 ERNIE-4.5-VL-28B-A3B-Thinking 31.1%
  7. 7 STEP3-VL-10B 29.7%

Source: Labs’ model cards

#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Seed2.1 Pro 54.3% Jun 2026 Lab model card
2 Seed2.0 Pro 47.4% Feb 2026 Lab model card
3 Seed1.5-VL 35% May 2025 Lab model card
4 Qwen3-VL-235B-A22B 34.4% Sep 2025 Lab model card
5 ERNIE 5.0 32% Feb 2026 Lab model card
6 ERNIE-4.5-VL-28B-A3B-Thinking 31.1% Nov 2025 Lab model card
7 STEP3-VL-10B 29.7% Jan 2026 Lab model card
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Seed1.5-VL 35% thinking May 2025 Official leaderboard
2 Qwen3-VL-235B-A22B 34.4% thinking Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
3 dots.vlm1 32.2% Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
4 o3 29.5% Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
5 Skywork-R1V3-38B 28.5% Jul 2025 Official leaderboard
6 Gemini 2.0 Pro 28% Feb 2025 Official leaderboard
7 InternVL3-78B 27.7% Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
8 InternVL2_5-78B 27.3% Dec 2024 Official leaderboard
9 InternVL3-38B 27.1% Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
10 GPT-4o Mar 2025 26.3% Mar 2025 Official leaderboard
11 Qwen2.5-VL-72B 26.2% Jan 2025 Official leaderboard
12 Qwen2.5-VL-7B 26% Jan 2025 Official leaderboard
13 Ovis2-8B 25.6% Feb 2025 Official leaderboard
14 Keye-VL-8B-Preview 25.6% Jun 2025 Official leaderboard
15 InternVL2.5-38B 25.5% Dec 2024 Official leaderboard
16 LLaVA-OneVision 7B (SI) 25.3% Aug 2024 Official leaderboard
17 MiniCPM-o-2_6 25.3% Jan 2025 Official leaderboard
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Seed2.1 Pro 54.3% Jun 2026 Lab model card
2 Seed2.0 Pro 47.4% Feb 2026 Lab model card
3 Seed1.5-VL 35% thinking May 2025 Official leaderboard
4 Qwen3-VL-235B-A22B 34.4% thinking Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
5 dots.vlm1 32.2% Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
6 ERNIE 5.0 32% Feb 2026 Lab model card
7 ERNIE-4.5-VL-28B-A3B-Thinking 31.1% Nov 2025 Lab model card
8 STEP3-VL-10B 29.7% Jan 2026 Lab model card
9 o3 29.5% Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
10 Skywork-R1V3-38B 28.5% Jul 2025 Official leaderboard
11 Gemini 2.0 Pro 28% Feb 2025 Official leaderboard
12 InternVL3-78B 27.7% Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
13 InternVL2_5-78B 27.3% Dec 2024 Official leaderboard
14 InternVL3-38B 27.1% Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
15 GPT-4o Mar 2025 26.3% Mar 2025 Official leaderboard
16 Qwen2.5-VL-72B 26.2% Jan 2025 Official leaderboard
17 Qwen2.5-VL-7B 26% Jan 2025 Official leaderboard
18 Ovis2-8B 25.6% Feb 2025 Official leaderboard
19 Keye-VL-8B-Preview 25.6% Jun 2025 Official leaderboard
20 InternVL2.5-38B 25.5% Dec 2024 Official leaderboard
21 LLaVA-OneVision 7B (SI) 25.3% Aug 2024 Official leaderboard
22 MiniCPM-o-2_6 25.3% Jan 2025 Official leaderboard

The benchmark's own leaderboard has 25 entries, 17 of them models we track. Switch the scores above to rank them together.

3 models have held number one in labs’ own numbers since its release in April 2025 3 models have held number one across all independent runs since its release in April 2025 5 models have held number one with claims included since its release in April 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.

Google DeepMind OpenAI ByteDance Seed
Own leaderboard Not tested since Sep 2025
Lab claims Not tested since Jun 2026
Seed2.1 Pro 54.3%

Sources: Official VisuLogic 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%) Seed2.1 Pro Seed2.0 Pro Seed1.5-VL o3 InternVL2_5-78B LLaVA-OneVision 7B (SI) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2025 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Seed2.1 Pro Seed2.0 Pro

Sources: Official VisuLogic leaderboard and labs’ model cards

Labs headline it less often now, last in February 2026

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
Qwen
Baidu
DateLaunch postScoreAs the post writes it
Feb 14, 2026 Seed2.0 Pro 47.4 VisuLogic
Feb 6, 2026 ERNIE 5.0 32 VisuLogic
Nov 11, 2025 ERNIE-4.5-VL-28B-A3B-Thinking 31.1 VisuLogic
Sep 23, 2025 Qwen3-VL-235B-A22B 34.4 VisuLogic
May 12, 2025 Seed1.5-VL 35 VisuLogic

6 system cards report it, from 4 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
Jun 23, 2026 Seed2.1 Pro model card 54.3 VisuLogic (Table 9) Capabilities
Feb 14, 2026 Seed2.0 Pro model card 47.4 VisuLogic (Table 8) Capabilities
Feb 4, 2026 ERNIE 5.0 technical report 32 VisuLogic (Table 3) Capabilities
Jan 14, 2026 STEP3-VL-10B technical report 29.7 VisuLogic, SeRe (Tables 1 and 3). PaCoRe 32.70 Capabilities
Nov 26, 2025 Qwen3-VL-235B-A22B technical report 34.4 VisuLogic (Table 2) Capabilities
May 11, 2025 Seed1.5-VL technical report 35 VisuLogic, thinking (Table 6). Non-thinking 33.0 Capabilities

2 lab claims 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. 2 of them match, which usually means one side copied the other. Every benchmark.

Model Lab says Board says Gap
Seed1.5-VL 35% VisuLogic 35% Leaderboard, thinking Same
Qwen3-VL-235B-A22B 34.4% VisuLogic 34.4% Leaderboard, thinking Same

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%