Benchmark Almanac

WorldBench

Gemini 3.1 Pro 64% leads since June 2026
Seed2.1 Pro 67.6% leads since June 2026
Only in system cards

Models answer hand-written reasoning questions about images drawn from a taxonomy of thousands of visual concepts. Questions were kept only if frontier models failed them.

The paper evaluates 15 models and the best reaches 64.0 percent. ByteDance Seed reports it in the Seed2.1 model card.

Released
June 2026
Kind
General visual questions
Level
Expert
Scored
Checked automatically
Answers
Short answer
Tasks
All public
Strongest model tested
GPT-5.4 #27 on the capability index
Last in a system card
June 2026
Last model added
June 2026
Scores refreshed
November 12th, 2026

In the authors’ words

In real-world applications, models are expected to perform reliably across diverse settings. Yet, many existing multimodal benchmarks expand task types without capturing the visual diversity needed to handle open-ended visual inputs. We present WorldBench, a challenging and visually diverse reasoning benchmark to evaluate Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs). We build a taxonomy of thousands of visual concepts across multiple domains (e.g., living things). Guided by this taxonomy, we curate a broad collection of images from search engines and existing datasets to comprehensively represent the visual world. Through structured trial-and-error, we manually design challenging questions that frontier MLLMs fail to answer. On quantitative and human evaluations, WorldBench achieves higher visual diversity than any existing diverse benchmark. Evaluating 15 MLLMs on WorldBench reveals weaknesses in visual understanding: even the strongest model reaches only 64.0% accuracy, while some models perform marginally above chance-level. We hope our work highlights the importance of visual diversity in building multimodal benchmarks.

Abstract of WorldBench: A Challenging and Visually Diverse Multimodal Reasoning Benchmark (arXiv:2606.06538, CC0)
14
Entries on its own leaderboard, 8 models we track
1
System card reports it, from 1 lab

Gemini 3.1 Pro leads with 64% among models released by April 2026

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.

Seed2.1 Pro leads with 67.6%, 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 April 2026, and nobody has tested a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:

  1. 1 Gemini 3.1 Pro 64%
  2. 2 Gemini 3 Flash 61.8%
  3. 3 Qwen3.5-VL-Plus-Thinking 59.3%
  4. 4 GPT-5.4 high 58.2%
  5. 5 Qwen3.5-VL-27B 56.6%
  6. 6 Claude Opus 4.7 53.7%
  7. 7 Grok-4.2 53.3%
  8. 8 Qwen3.5-VL-35B-A3B 52.9%
  9. 9 Kimi K2.5 52.5%
  10. 10 Gemma 4 31B IT 49.7%
  11. 11 Qwen3.5-VL-Plus-Instruct 48.7%
  12. 12 GLM-4.6V 42.5%
  13. 13 InternVL-3.5 41.2%
  14. 14 Gemma 4 E4B 34.6%

Source: Official WorldBench leaderboard

#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
1 Gemini 3.1 Pro 64% Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
2 Gemini 3 Flash 61.8% Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
3 Qwen3.5-VL-Plus-Thinking 59.3% Official leaderboard
4 GPT-5.4 58.2% high Mar 2026 Official leaderboard
5 Qwen3.5-VL-27B 56.6% Official leaderboard
6 Claude Opus 4.7 53.7% Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
7 Grok-4.2 53.3% Official leaderboard
8 Qwen3.5-VL-35B-A3B 52.9% Official leaderboard
9 Kimi K2.5 52.5% Jan 2026 Official leaderboard
10 Gemma 4 31B IT 49.7% Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
11 Qwen3.5-VL-Plus-Instruct 48.7% Official leaderboard
12 GLM-4.6V 42.5% Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
13 InternVL-3.5 41.2% Official leaderboard
14 Gemma 4 E4B 34.6% Mar 2026 Official leaderboard
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Seed2.1 Pro 67.6% Jun 2026 Lab model card
2 Gemini 3.1 Pro 64% Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
3 Gemini 3 Flash 61.8% Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
4 GPT-5.4 58.2% high Mar 2026 Official leaderboard
5 Claude Opus 4.7 53.7% Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
6 Kimi K2.5 52.5% Jan 2026 Official leaderboard
7 Gemma 4 31B IT 49.7% Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
8 GLM-4.6V 42.5% Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
9 Gemma 4 E4B 34.6% Mar 2026 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 June 2026

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

Google DeepMind
Own leaderboard Not tested since Jun 2026

Source: Official WorldBench leaderboard

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% 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Seed2.1 Pro Gemini 3.1 Pro GLM-4.6V 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Seed2.1 Pro GLM-4.6V

Sources: Official WorldBench leaderboard and labs’ model cards

Labs report it only in system cards

We read the headline results of 522 launch posts from 52 labs, and none of them list this benchmark. Some system cards do, below.

One system card reports it

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 67.6 WorldBench (Table 9) 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%