Benchmark Almanac

VLMs Are Blind

Seed2.0 Pro 98.6% leads since February 2026
Fading

Models answer seven simple visual tasks such as counting line crossings or overlapping circles, which young children solve easily. Scored by accuracy.

VLMsAreBiased is a separate test by an overlapping team.

Released
July 2024
Kind
Spatial reasoning and counting
Level
Everyday
Scored
Checked automatically
Answers
Short answer
Tasks
All public
Strongest model tested
Qwen3.6 27B #87 on the capability index
Last in a launch post
April 2026, dropped after it saturated
Last model added
April 2026

In the authors’ words

While large language models with vision capabilities (VLMs), e.g., GPT-4o and Gemini 1.5 Pro, score high on many vision-understanding benchmarks, they are still struggling with low-level vision tasks that are easy to humans. Specifically, on BlindTest, our suite of 7 very simple tasks, including identifying (a) whether two circles overlap; (b) how many times two lines intersect; (c) which letter is being circled in a word; and (d) the number of circles in an Olympic-like logo, four state-of-the-art VLMs are only 58.07% accurate on average. Claude 3.5 Sonnet performs the best at 77.84% accuracy, far from the human expected accuracy of 100%. Across different image resolutions and line widths, VLMs including slow-thinking models consistently struggle with those tasks that require precise spatial information when geometric primitives overlap or are close. Yet, VLMs perform at near-100% accuracy when much more space is added to separate shapes and letters. Linear probing experiments show that vision encoders contain sufficient visual information to solve BlindTest and that language models fail to decode this information into correct answers. Code and data are at: https://vlmsareblind.github.io

Abstract of Vision language models are blind: Failing to translate detailed visual features into words (arXiv:2407.06581, CC0)
14
Models scored in lab cards
13
Launch posts list it, from 3 labs
5
System cards report it, from 3 labs

Seed2.0 Pro leads with 98.6% among models released by April 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.

The newest model with a score here came out in April 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 Seed2.0 Pro 98.6%
  2. 2 Qwen3.5-35B-A3B 97%
  3. 3 Qwen3.6 27B 97%
  4. 4 Qwen3.5-27B 96.9%
  5. 5 Qwen3.5-122B-A10B 96.7%
  6. 6 Qwen3.5-9B 93.7%
  7. 7 Seed1.8 93%
  8. 8 Qwen3.5-4B 92.6%
  9. 9 Seed1.5-VL 92.1%
  10. 10 ERNIE 5.0 91.4%
  11. 11 Qwen3-VL-235B-A22B 79.5%
  12. 12 ERNIE-4.5-VL-28B-A3B-Thinking 77.3%
  13. 13 Qwen3.5-2B 75.8%
  14. 14 Qwen3.5-0.8B 59.4%

Source: Labs’ model cards

#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Seed2.0 Pro 98.6% Feb 2026 Lab model card
2 Qwen3.5-35B-A3B 97% Feb 2026 Lab model card
3 Qwen3.6 27B 97% Apr 2026 Lab model card
4 Qwen3.5-27B 96.9% Feb 2026 Lab model card
5 Qwen3.5-122B-A10B 96.7% Feb 2026 Lab model card
6 Qwen3.5-9B 93.7% Mar 2026 Lab model card
7 Seed1.8 93% Dec 2025 Lab model card
8 Qwen3.5-4B 92.6% Mar 2026 Lab model card
9 Seed1.5-VL 92.1% May 2025 Lab model card
10 ERNIE 5.0 91.4% Feb 2026 Lab model card
11 Qwen3-VL-235B-A22B 79.5% Nov 2025 Lab model card
12 ERNIE-4.5-VL-28B-A3B-Thinking 77.3% Nov 2025 Lab model card
13 Qwen3.5-2B 75.8% Mar 2026 Lab model card
14 Qwen3.5-0.8B 59.4% Mar 2026 Lab model card

3 models have held number one in labs’ own numbers since its release in July 2024

Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.

ByteDance Seed
Lab claims Passed 85% in May 2025, by Seed1.5-VL
Seed2.0 Pro 98.6%

Source: Labs’ model cards

ByteDance Seed’s own number for Seed1.5-VL passed 85% in May 2025

All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.

Reported by the lab in its model card Best so far
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2025 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Seed2.0 Pro Seed1.8 Seed1.5-VL 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2025 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Seed2.0 Pro Seed1.5-VL

Source: Labs’ model cards

Labs headline it less often now, last in April 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
Baidu
Qwen
DateLaunch postScoreAs the post writes it
Apr 22, 2026 Qwen3.6 27B 97 VlmsAreBlind
Mar 2, 2026 Qwen3.5-0.8B 59.4 VlmsAreBlind 59.4/57.3 (with CI / without CI)
Mar 2, 2026 Qwen3.5-2B 75.8 VlmsAreBlind 75.8/74.3 (with CI / without CI)
Mar 2, 2026 Qwen3.5-4B 92.6 VlmsAreBlind
Mar 2, 2026 Qwen3.5-9B 93.7 VlmsAreBlind
Feb 24, 2026 Qwen3.5-35B-A3B 97 VlmsAreBlind
Feb 24, 2026 Qwen3.5-27B 96.9 VlmsAreBlind
Feb 24, 2026 Qwen3.5-122B-A10B 96.7 VlmsAreBlind
Feb 14, 2026 Seed2.0 Pro 98.6 VLMsAreBlind
Feb 6, 2026 ERNIE 5.0 91.4 VLMAreBlind
Dec 18, 2025 Seed1.8 93 VLMsAreBlind
Nov 11, 2025 ERNIE-4.5-VL-28B-A3B-Thinking 77.3 VLMs Are Blind
May 12, 2025 Seed1.5-VL 92.1 VLM are Blind

5 system cards report it, from 3 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
Mar 21, 2026 Seed1.8 model card 93 VLMsAreBlind (Table 2) Capabilities
Feb 14, 2026 Seed2.0 Pro model card 98.6 VLMsAreBlind (Table 8) Capabilities
Feb 4, 2026 ERNIE 5.0 technical report 91.4 VLMAreBlind (Table 3) Capabilities
Nov 26, 2025 Qwen3-VL-235B-A22B technical report 79.5 VlmsAreBlind (Table 2) Capabilities
May 11, 2025 Seed1.5-VL technical report 92.1 VLM are Blind, thinking (Table 6). Non-thinking 90.8 Capabilities

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%