VisuLogic
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.
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:
- Claude Fable 5.2
-
Gemini 4 Carbon
- GPT-6 Astra
- Claude Opus 5.5
- and 16 more
- 1
Seed2.1 Pro 54.3%
- 2
Seed2.0 Pro 47.4%
- 3
Seed1.5-VL 35%
- 4
Qwen3-VL-235B-A22B 34.4%
- 5
ERNIE 5.0 32%
- 6
ERNIE-4.5-VL-28B-A3B-Thinking 31.1%
- 7
STEP3-VL-10B 29.7%
Source: Labs’ model cards
- 35.0
Seed1.5-VL
- 34.4
Qwen3-VL-235B-A22B
- 32.2 dots.vlm1
- 29.5 o3
- 28.5
Skywork-R1V3-38B
- 28.0
Gemini 2.0 Pro
- 27.7
InternVL3-78B
- 27.3
InternVL2_5-78B
- 27.1
InternVL3-38B
- 26.3 GPT-4o
- 26.2
Qwen2.5-VL-72B
- 26.0
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
- 25.6
Ovis2-8B
- 25.6
Keye-VL-8B-Preview
- 25.5
InternVL2.5-38B
- 25.3
LLaVA-OneVision 7B (SI)
- 25.3 MiniCPM-o-2_6
- 1
Seed1.5-VL thinking 35%
- 2
Qwen3-VL-235B-A22B thinking 34.4%
- 3 dots.vlm1 32.2%
- 4 o3 29.5%
- 5
Skywork-R1V3-38B 28.5%
- 6
Gemini 2.0 Pro 28%
- 7
InternVL3-78B 27.7%
- 8
InternVL2_5-78B 27.3%
- 9
InternVL3-38B 27.1%
- 10 GPT-4o Mar 2025 26.3%
- 11
Qwen2.5-VL-72B 26.2%
- 12
Qwen2.5-VL-7B 26%
- 13
Ovis2-8B 25.6%
- 14
Keye-VL-8B-Preview 25.6%
- 15
InternVL2.5-38B 25.5%
- 16
LLaVA-OneVision 7B (SI) 25.3%
- 17 MiniCPM-o-2_6 25.3%
Source: Official VisuLogic leaderboard
- 54.3
Seed2.1 Pro
- 47.4
Seed2.0 Pro
- 35.0
Seed1.5-VL
- 34.4
Qwen3-VL-235B-A22B
- 32.2 dots.vlm1
- 32.0
ERNIE 5.0
- 31.1
ERNIE-4.5-VL-28B-A3B-Thinking
- 29.7
STEP3-VL-10B
- 29.5 o3
- 28.5
Skywork-R1V3-38B
- 28.0
Gemini 2.0 Pro
- 27.7
InternVL3-78B
- 27.3
InternVL2_5-78B
- 27.1
InternVL3-38B
- 26.3 GPT-4o
- 26.2
Qwen2.5-VL-72B
- 26.0
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
- 25.6
Ovis2-8B
- 25.6
Keye-VL-8B-Preview
- 25.5
InternVL2.5-38B
- 25.3
LLaVA-OneVision 7B (SI)
- 25.3 MiniCPM-o-2_6
- 1
Seed2.1 Pro 54.3%
- 2
Seed2.0 Pro 47.4%
- 3
Seed1.5-VL thinking 35%
- 4
Qwen3-VL-235B-A22B thinking 34.4%
- 5 dots.vlm1 32.2%
- 6
ERNIE 5.0 32%
- 7
ERNIE-4.5-VL-28B-A3B-Thinking 31.1%
- 8
STEP3-VL-10B 29.7%
- 9 o3 29.5%
- 10
Skywork-R1V3-38B 28.5%
- 11
Gemini 2.0 Pro 28%
- 12
InternVL3-78B 27.7%
- 13
InternVL2_5-78B 27.3%
- 14
InternVL3-38B 27.1%
- 15 GPT-4o Mar 2025 26.3%
- 16
Qwen2.5-VL-72B 26.2%
- 17
Qwen2.5-VL-7B 26%
- 18
Ovis2-8B 25.6%
- 19
Keye-VL-8B-Preview 25.6%
- 20
InternVL2.5-38B 25.5%
- 21
LLaVA-OneVision 7B (SI) 25.3%
- 22 MiniCPM-o-2_6 25.3%
Sources: Labs’ model cards and official VisuLogic leaderboard
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 54.3% | Jun 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 2 | | 47.4% | Feb 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 3 | | 35% | May 2025 | Lab model card | |
| 4 | | 34.4% | Sep 2025 | Lab model card | |
| 5 | | 32% | Feb 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 6 | | 31.1% | Nov 2025 | Lab model card | |
| 7 | | 29.7% | Jan 2026 | Lab model card |
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 35% | thinking | May 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 2 | | 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 | | 28.5% | Jul 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 6 | | 28% | Feb 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 7 | | 27.7% | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 8 | | 27.3% | Dec 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 9 | | 27.1% | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 10 | GPT-4o Mar 2025 | 26.3% | Mar 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 11 | | 26.2% | Jan 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 12 | | 26% | Jan 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 13 | | 25.6% | Feb 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 14 | | 25.6% | Jun 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 15 | | 25.5% | Dec 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 16 | | 25.3% | Aug 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 17 | MiniCPM-o-2_6 | 25.3% | Jan 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 54.3% | Jun 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 2 | | 47.4% | Feb 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 3 | | 35% | thinking | May 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 4 | | 34.4% | thinking | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 5 | dots.vlm1 | 32.2% | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 6 | | 32% | Feb 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 7 | | 31.1% | Nov 2025 | Lab model card | |
| 8 | | 29.7% | Jan 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 9 | o3 | 29.5% | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 10 | | 28.5% | Jul 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 11 | | 28% | Feb 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 12 | | 27.7% | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 13 | | 27.3% | Dec 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 14 | | 27.1% | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 15 | GPT-4o Mar 2025 | 26.3% | Mar 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 16 | | 26.2% | Jan 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 17 | | 26% | Jan 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 18 | | 25.6% | Feb 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 19 | | 25.6% | Jun 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 20 | | 25.5% | Dec 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 21 | | 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.
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.
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.
| Date | Launch post | Score | As the post writes it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 14, 2026 | 47.4 | VisuLogic | |
| Feb 6, 2026 | 32 | VisuLogic | |
| Nov 11, 2025 | 31.1 | VisuLogic | |
| Sep 23, 2025 | 34.4 | VisuLogic | |
| May 12, 2025 | 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.
| Date | Document | Score | As the document writes it | Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 23, 2026 | | 54.3 | VisuLogic (Table 9) | Capabilities |
| Feb 14, 2026 | | 47.4 | VisuLogic (Table 8) | Capabilities |
| Feb 4, 2026 | | 32 | VisuLogic (Table 3) | Capabilities |
| Jan 14, 2026 | | 29.7 | VisuLogic, SeRe (Tables 1 and 3). PaCoRe 32.70 | Capabilities |
| Nov 26, 2025 | | 34.4 | VisuLogic (Table 2) | Capabilities |
| May 11, 2025 | | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| | 35% VisuLogic | 35% Leaderboard, thinking | Same |
| | 34.4% VisuLogic | 34.4% Leaderboard, thinking | Same |
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%