Benchmark Almanac

3DCodeArena

Claude Fable 5 1,230 leads since June 2026
Not in model cards

Models generate 3D assets through code. Human preference votes determine the published Bradley-Terry Elo rating.

The board measures human preference. The separate 3DCodeBench record retains percentage-valued lab results.

Released
May 2026
Kind
CAD models
Level
Expert
Scored
Ranked by votes
Answers
Open-ended
Tasks
All public
Strongest model tested
Claude Fable 5 #11 on the capability index
Last model added
June 2026
Scores refreshed
November 12th, 2026

In the authors’ words

Procedural 3D modeling through code is emerging as a versatile paradigm, offering deterministic, engine-ready, and precisely editable assets that neural 3D generators inherently lack. Authoring such procedural content, however, demands deep expertise in 3D software APIs, parametric design, and code-level geometric reasoning. In this paper, we propose 3DCodeBench, a systematic benchmark for evaluating vision-language model (VLM) agents for procedural 3D generation in 3D modeling software. Specifically, 3DCodeBench evaluates how effectively 12 advanced VLMs can serve as procedural 3D modelers by translating text and image references into procedural code for 3D modeling software. Recognizing that automated metrics may not fully capture the perceptual quality of 3D shapes, we build 3DCodeArena, a ranking platform based on pairwise human preferences over generated 3D outputs. From extensive evaluations and results, we observe that: (1) Failures mostly arise from API mismatches, while successful renders still suffer from disconnected or floating 3D geometric components. (2) Test-time scaling, such as higher thinking budgets and multi-turn refinement, improves performance overall. Our findings highlight a critical need for high-quality procedural coding data to advance commercial VLMs. Furthermore, effective procedural 3D modeling requires a robust execution environment that provides high-fidelity feedback for iterative refinement. We release 3DCodeBench, including the curated large-scale dataset of multimodal (text/image) prompts, procedural code, 3D object triplets, evaluation protocol, and the public 3DCodeArena platform as a foundational toolkit for exploring VLM-based procedural 3D modelers.

Abstract of 3DCodeBench: Benchmarking Agentic Procedural 3D Modeling Via Code (arXiv:2606.01057, CC0)
14
Models scored on its own leaderboard

Claude Fable 5 leads with 1,230 among models released by June 2026

Best score per model from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on November 12th, 2026. Where a model ran with several settings or harnesses, we keep its best. Every run is in the next chart.

The newest model with a score here came out in June 2026, and nobody has tested a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:

Bars start at 700.

  1. 1 Claude Fable 5 1,230
  2. 2 GPT-5.5 1,135
  3. 3 Gemini 3.1 Pro 1,116
  4. 4 Gemini 3.5 Flash 1,114
  5. 5 Claude Opus 4.8 1,091
  6. 6 GPT-5.4 1,042
  7. 7 Gemini 3 Flash 1,010
  8. 8 Claude Sonnet 4.6 983
  9. 9 Claude Opus 4.7 977
  10. 10 Gemma 4 31B IT 921
  11. 11 GPT-5.4 Mini 920
  12. 12 Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite 849
  13. 13 Gemma 4 26B A4B 828
  14. 14 Claude Haiku 4.5 771

Source: Official 3DCodeArena leaderboard

#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Claude Fable 5 1,230 Jun 2026 Official leaderboard
2 GPT-5.5 1,135 Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
3 Gemini 3.1 Pro 1,116 Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
4 Gemini 3.5 Flash 1,114 May 2026 Official leaderboard
5 Claude Opus 4.8 1,091 May 2026 Official leaderboard
6 GPT-5.4 1,042 Mar 2026 Official leaderboard
7 Gemini 3 Flash 1,010 Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
8 Claude Sonnet 4.6 983 Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
9 Claude Opus 4.7 977 Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
10 Gemma 4 31B IT 921 Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
11 GPT-5.4 Mini 920 Mar 2026 Official leaderboard
12 Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite 849 Mar 2026 Official leaderboard
13 Gemma 4 26B A4B 828 Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
14 Claude Haiku 4.5 771 Oct 2025 Official leaderboard

Cost vs. Human-Preference Elo

The line joins the runs that no other run beats on both measures. We redrew this chart from the numbers on the official leaderboard.

800 1,000 1,200 $0.01$0.1$1 Per-query list-price cost ($), log scale, lower is better 3DCodeArena BT-Elo (Elo) Claude Haiku 4.5: 3DCodeArena BT-Elo 771 Elo, per-query list-price cost $0.03 Claude Sonnet 4.6: 3DCodeArena BT-Elo 983 Elo, per-query list-price cost $0.29 GPT-5.4: 3DCodeArena BT-Elo 1,042 Elo, per-query list-price cost $0.2 GPT-5.4 Mini: 3DCodeArena BT-Elo 920 Elo, per-query list-price cost $0.11 Claude Opus 4.7: 3DCodeArena BT-Elo 977 Elo, per-query list-price cost $0.14 Gemini 3 Flash: 3DCodeArena BT-Elo 1,010 Elo, per-query list-price cost $0.02 Gemini 3.1 Pro: 3DCodeArena BT-Elo 1,116 Elo, per-query list-price cost $0.12 Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite: 3DCodeArena BT-Elo 849 Elo, per-query list-price cost $0.01 GPT-5.5: 3DCodeArena BT-Elo 1,135 Elo, per-query list-price cost $0.32 Gemini 3.5 Flash: 3DCodeArena BT-Elo 1,114 Elo, per-query list-price cost $0.04 GPT-5.5Gemini 3.1 ProGemini 3.5 FlashGemini 3 FlashGemini 3.1 Flash-Lite 800 1,000 1,200 $0.01$0.1$1 Per-query list-price cost ($), log scale, lower is better 3DCodeArena BT-Elo (Elo) Claude Haiku 4.5: 3DCodeArena BT-Elo 771 Elo, per-query list-price cost $0.03 Claude Sonnet 4.6: 3DCodeArena BT-Elo 983 Elo, per-query list-price cost $0.29 GPT-5.4: 3DCodeArena BT-Elo 1,042 Elo, per-query list-price cost $0.2 GPT-5.4 Mini: 3DCodeArena BT-Elo 920 Elo, per-query list-price cost $0.11 Claude Opus 4.7: 3DCodeArena BT-Elo 977 Elo, per-query list-price cost $0.14 Gemini 3 Flash: 3DCodeArena BT-Elo 1,010 Elo, per-query list-price cost $0.02 Gemini 3.1 Pro: 3DCodeArena BT-Elo 1,116 Elo, per-query list-price cost $0.12 Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite: 3DCodeArena BT-Elo 849 Elo, per-query list-price cost $0.01 GPT-5.5: 3DCodeArena BT-Elo 1,135 Elo, per-query list-price cost $0.32 Gemini 3.5 Flash: 3DCodeArena BT-Elo 1,114 Elo, per-query list-price cost $0.04 GPT-5.5Gemini 3.1 ProGemini 3.5 FlashGemini 3 FlashGemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
ModelSetting3DCodeArena BT-EloPer-query list-price cost
GPT-5.5 1,135 Elo $0.32
Gemini 3.1 Pro 1,116 Elo $0.12
Gemini 3.5 Flash 1,114 Elo $0.04
GPT-5.4 1,042 Elo $0.2
Gemini 3 Flash 1,010 Elo $0.02
Claude Sonnet 4.6 982.8 Elo $0.29
Claude Opus 4.7 976.9 Elo $0.14
GPT-5.4 Mini 919.7 Elo $0.11
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite 849.2 Elo $0.01
Claude Haiku 4.5 770.9 Elo $0.03

Of runs with a cost, the best scores 1,135 for $0.32 a task

Runs on the cost frontier score higher than any run that's cheaper. Gemini 3.5 Flash comes within 20.6 of the best for $0.04 a task, 8 times cheaper. The costs are the leaderboard's own estimates, so compare them only within this benchmark.

Google DeepMind OpenAI Cost frontier One model at each effort level
0 250 500 750 1,000 1,250 $0.01 $0.02 $0.05 $0.10 $0.20 $0.50 $1.00 Cost per task, log scale GPT-5.5 Gemini 3.1 Pro Gemini 3.5 Flash Gemini 3 Flash Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite 0 250 500 750 1,000 1,250 $0.01 $0.10 $1.00 Cost per task, log scale GPT-5.5 Gemini 3.1 Pro

Source: Official 3DCodeArena leaderboard

ModelEffortHarnessScoreCost per taskOutput tokens
Claude Fable 5 1,230
GPT-5.5 1,135 $0.32
Gemini 3.1 Pro 1,116 $0.12
Gemini 3.5 Flash 1,114 $0.04
Claude Opus 4.8 1,091
GPT-5.4 1,042 $0.20
Gemini 3 Flash 1,010 $0.02
Claude Sonnet 4.6 983 $0.29
Claude Opus 4.7 977 $0.14
Gemma 4 31B IT 921
GPT-5.4 Mini 920 $0.11
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite 849 $0.01
Gemma 4 26B A4B 828
Claude Haiku 4.5 771 $0.03

2 models have held number one on the official leaderboard since its release in May 2026

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

OpenAI Anthropic
Own leaderboard Not tested since Jun 2026

Source: Official 3DCodeArena 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
800 1,000 1,200 2026 800 1,000 1,200 2026

Source: Official 3DCodeArena leaderboard

No lab model card reports it yet

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

More in Engineering and CAD

All 23 in Engineering and CAD
  • EEBench In use 13 electrical-engineering circuit and PCB design tasks graded by deterministic build checks, simulation and BOM constraints. No LLM judge. Gemini 4 Carbon 83.9%
  • Parametric CAD Bench In use Agents author editable parametric FreeCAD part designs, graded against held-back references for geometry and spec consistency. Claude Opus 5.5 61%
  • 3DCodeBench In use Agentic procedural 3D modeling via code: author engine-ready 3D assets through software APIs. Graded for executability and shape fidelity. LongCat-2.5 55.4%
  • CADGenBench Only in system cards Agents construct CAD models from design prompts. The generation split is graded for executability and geometric correctness. Claude Fable 5 45.1%
  • PartBench Only in system cards Parametric mechanical part design and CAD-style generation, graded for geometric and manufacturing fidelity. Grok 4.6 58.5%
  • LMBuild Not in model cards Language model agents design 3D structures as parts, joints, materials and assembly steps. Scoring checks that the structures can be built and work as intended. GPT-6 Astra 66.5%