multimodal benchmark
A bilingual benchmark for assessing multi-modal capabilities of vision-language models through multiple-choice questions in both English and Chinese, providing systematic evaluation across diverse vision-language tasks with robust metrics.
Updated Aug 7, 2026
Sorted by the source-provided rank. Higher score is better according to the registry.
| 1 | ST | 91.8% | 100.0% | 9 | C | |
| 2 | AC | 88.0% | 87.5% | 9 | C | |
| 3 | MI | 86.7% | 75.0% | 9 | C | |
| 4 | AC | 86.5% | 62.5% | 9 | C | |
| 5 | AC | 84.3% | 50.0% | 9 | C | |
| 6 | MI | 81.9% | 37.5% | 9 | C | |
| 7 | DE | 80.3% | 25.0% | 9 | C | |
| 8 | DE | 79.6% | 12.5% | 9 | C | |
| 9 | DE | 69.2% | 0.0% | 9 | C |
Top published rows on the benchmark's original scale.
The top published results on this benchmark's own scale.
Definition and scoring fields from the benchmark registry.
A bilingual benchmark for assessing multi-modal capabilities of vision-language models through multiple-choice questions in both English and Chinese, providing systematic evaluation across diverse vision-language tasks with robust metrics.
Scores are shown in ratio. The current registry marks this benchmark as not independently verified with evidence level B.
Source-native results are preserved. Eligibility for the overall LLMBoard score is a separate policy decision.
Common questions about MMBench.
Step3-VL-10B is currently ranked first with 91.8%.
A bilingual benchmark for assessing multi-modal capabilities of vision-language models through multiple-choice questions in both English and Chinese, providing systematic evaluation across diverse vision-language tasks with robust metrics.
Yes. Higher values rank better for this benchmark.
9 unique published model results are currently shown.
This benchmark is marked as eligible for the current LLMBoard capability methodology.