VLADBench
Models answer closed-form questions about driving scenes, from static traffic knowledge to reasoning about dynamic road situations.
Qwen reports it under autonomous driving.
- Made by
- Authors of arXiv 2503.21505
- Released
- March 2025
- Kind
- Spatial reasoning and counting
- Level
- University
- Scored
- Checked automatically
- Answers
- Multiple choice
- Tasks
- All public
- Strongest model tested
-
Qwen3.7-Plus #78 on the capability index
- Last in a launch post
- June 2026
- Last model added
- June 2026
- Scores refreshed
- November 12th, 2026
In the authors’ words
Existing benchmarks for Vision-Language Model (VLM) on autonomous driving (AD) primarily assess interpretability through open-form visual question answering (QA) within coarse-grained tasks, which remain insufficient to assess capabilities in complex driving scenarios. To this end, we introduce VLADBench, a challenging and fine-grained dataset featuring close-form QAs that progress from static foundational knowledge and elements to advanced reasoning for dynamic on-road situations. The elaborate VLADBench spans 5 key domains: Traffic Knowledge Understanding, General Element Recognition, Traffic Graph Generation, Target Attribute Comprehension, and Ego Decision-Making and Planning. These domains are further broken down into 11 secondary aspects and 29 tertiary tasks for a granular evaluation. A thorough assessment of general and domain-specific (DS) VLMs on this benchmark reveals both their strengths and critical limitations in AD contexts. To further exploit the cognitive and reasoning interactions among the 5 domains for AD understanding, we start from a small-scale VLM and train the DS models on individual domain datasets (collected from 1.4M DS QAs across public sources). The experimental results demonstrate that the proposed benchmark provides a crucial step toward a more comprehensive assessment of VLMs in AD, paving the way for the development of more cognitively sophisticated and reasoning-capable AD systems.
Qwen2.5-VL-72B leads with 58% among models released by January 2025
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.
Qwen3.7-Plus leads with 77.2%, 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 January 2025, and nobody has tested 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
- 58.0
Qwen2.5-VL-72B
- 57.4 VLADBench authors baseline-4B
- 56.5 Qwen2-VL-72B
- 56.0 GPT-4o (snapshot unspecified)
- 54.2 Gemini 1.5 Pro (snapshot unspecified)
- 53.2 InternVL2-76B
- 51.7 LLaVA-Video-7B
- 51.6 LLaVA-Video-72B
- 50.8
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
- 50.2 LLaVA-OneVision 72B
- 50.0
LLaVA-OneVision 7B
- 49.8 DriveLM BDD-4B
- 49.4 Qwen2-VL-7B-Instruct
- 48.6
InternVL2-8B
- 47.5 DriveMM-7B
- 45.5 MiniCPM-V-2.6-8B
- 45.0
InternVL2-4B
- 44.9 DriveLM-4B
- 43.2 Qwen-VL-7B
- 38.8 VILA-U-40B
- 38.7 LongVILA-8B
- 35.9 CogVLM2-8B
- 33.9 Dolphins-9B
- 30.9 InternLM-XComposer2.5-8B
- 20.2 Senna-7B
- 1
Qwen2.5-VL-72B 58%
- 2 VLADBench authors baseline-4B 57.4%
- 3 Qwen2-VL-72B 56.5%
- 4 GPT-4o (snapshot unspecified) 56%
- 5 Gemini 1.5 Pro (snapshot unspecified) 54.2%
- 6 InternVL2-76B 53.2%
- 7 LLaVA-Video-7B 51.7%
- 8 LLaVA-Video-72B 51.6%
- 9
Qwen2.5-VL-7B 50.8%
- 10 LLaVA-OneVision 72B 50.2%
- 11
LLaVA-OneVision 7B 50%
- 12 DriveLM BDD-4B 49.8%
- 13 Qwen2-VL-7B-Instruct 49.4%
- 14
InternVL2-8B 48.6%
- 15 DriveMM-7B 47.5%
- 16 MiniCPM-V-2.6-8B 45.5%
- 17
InternVL2-4B 45%
- 18 DriveLM-4B 44.9%
- 19 Qwen-VL-7B 43.2%
- 20 VILA-U-40B 38.8%
- 21 LongVILA-8B 38.7%
- 22 CogVLM2-8B 35.9%
- 23 Dolphins-9B 33.9%
- 24 InternLM-XComposer2.5-8B 30.9%
- 25 Senna-7B 20.2%
Source: Official VLADBench leaderboard
- 1
Qwen3.7-Plus 77.2%
- 2
Qwen2.5-VL-72B 58%
- 3
Qwen2.5-VL-7B 50.8%
- 4 LLaVA-OneVision 72B 50.2%
- 5
LLaVA-OneVision 7B 50%
- 6 Qwen2-VL-7B-Instruct 49.4%
- 7
InternVL2-8B 48.6%
- 8
InternVL2-4B 45%
Sources: Labs’ model cards and official VLADBench leaderboard
| # | Entry | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 58% | Jan 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 2 | VLADBench authors baseline-4B | 57.4% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 3 | Qwen2-VL-72B | 56.5% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 4 | GPT-4o (snapshot unspecified) | 56% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 5 | Gemini 1.5 Pro (snapshot unspecified) | 54.2% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 6 | InternVL2-76B | 53.2% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 7 | LLaVA-Video-7B | 51.7% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 8 | LLaVA-Video-72B | 51.6% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 9 | | 50.8% | Jan 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 10 | LLaVA-OneVision 72B | 50.2% | Aug 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 11 | | 50% | Aug 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 12 | DriveLM BDD-4B | 49.8% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 13 | Qwen2-VL-7B-Instruct | 49.4% | Aug 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 14 | | 48.6% | Jul 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 15 | DriveMM-7B | 47.5% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 16 | MiniCPM-V-2.6-8B | 45.5% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 17 | | 45% | Jul 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 18 | DriveLM-4B | 44.9% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 19 | Qwen-VL-7B | 43.2% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 20 | VILA-U-40B | 38.8% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 21 | LongVILA-8B | 38.7% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 22 | CogVLM2-8B | 35.9% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 23 | Dolphins-9B | 33.9% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 24 | InternLM-XComposer2.5-8B | 30.9% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 25 | Senna-7B | 20.2% | Official leaderboard |
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 77.2% | Jun 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 2 | | 58% | Jan 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 3 | | 50.8% | Jan 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 4 | LLaVA-OneVision 72B | 50.2% | Aug 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 5 | | 50% | Aug 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 6 | Qwen2-VL-7B-Instruct | 49.4% | Aug 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 7 | | 48.6% | Jul 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 8 | | 45% | Jul 2024 | Official leaderboard |
Labs report scores for 1 model in their cards. Switch the scores above to rank them together.
Number one over time 2 models have held number one with claims included since its release in March 2025
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.
Source: Official VLADBench leaderboard
Scores over time
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
Sources: Official VLADBench leaderboard and labs’ model cards
One lab put it in a launch post in the last six months
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 1, 2026 | 77.2 | VLADBench |
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%