3DCodeArena
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.
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:
- Claude Fable 5.2
-
Gemini 4 Carbon
- GPT-6 Astra
- Claude Opus 5.5
- and 14 more
Bars start at 700.
- 1 Claude Fable 5 1,230
- 2 GPT-5.5 1,135
- 3
Gemini 3.1 Pro 1,116
- 4
Gemini 3.5 Flash 1,114
- 5 Claude Opus 4.8 1,091
- 6 GPT-5.4 1,042
- 7
Gemini 3 Flash 1,010
- 8 Claude Sonnet 4.6 983
- 9 Claude Opus 4.7 977
- 10
Gemma 4 31B IT 921
- 11 GPT-5.4 Mini 920
- 12
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite 849
- 13
Gemma 4 26B A4B 828
- 14 Claude Haiku 4.5 771
Source: Official 3DCodeArena leaderboard
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Claude Fable 5 | 1,230 | Jun 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 2 | GPT-5.5 | 1,135 | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 3 | | 1,116 | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 4 | | 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 | | 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 | | 921 | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 11 | GPT-5.4 Mini | 920 | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 12 | | 849 | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 13 | | 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.
| Model | Setting | 3DCodeArena BT-Elo | Per-query list-price cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPT-5.5 | 1,135 Elo | $0.32 | |
| | 1,116 Elo | $0.12 | |
| | 1,114 Elo | $0.04 | |
| GPT-5.4 | 1,042 Elo | $0.2 | |
| | 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 | |
| | 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.
Source: Official 3DCodeArena leaderboard
| Model | Effort | Harness | Score | Cost per task | Output tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Fable 5 | 1,230 | ||||
| GPT-5.5 | 1,135 | $0.32 | |||
| | 1,116 | $0.12 | |||
| | 1,114 | $0.04 | |||
| Claude Opus 4.8 | 1,091 | ||||
| GPT-5.4 | 1,042 | $0.20 | |||
| | 1,010 | $0.02 | |||
| Claude Sonnet 4.6 | 983 | $0.29 | |||
| Claude Opus 4.7 | 977 | $0.14 | |||
| | 921 | ||||
| GPT-5.4 Mini | 920 | $0.11 | |||
| | 849 | $0.01 | |||
| | 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.
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.
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
- 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%