ArtifactsBench
Models generate interactive visual code artifacts for 1,825 tasks. An MLLM judge scores rendered screenshots and code against a per-task checklist.
In the authors’ words
The generative capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) are rapidly expanding from static code to dynamic, interactive visual artifacts. This progress is bottlenecked by a critical evaluation gap: established benchmarks focus on algorithmic correctness and are blind to the visual fidelity and interactive integrity that define modern user experiences. To bridge this gap, we introduce ArtifactsBench, a new benchmark and paradigm for the automated, multimodal evaluation of visual code generation. Our framework programmatically renders each generated artifact and captures its dynamic behavior through temporal screenshots. This visual evidence, alongside the source code, is then assessed by a Multimodal LLM (MLLM)-as-Judge, which is rigorously guided by a fine-grained, per-task checklist to ensure holistic and reproducible scoring. We construct a new benchmark of 1,825 diverse tasks and evaluate over 30 leading LLMs. Our automated evaluation achieves a striking 94.4% ranking consistency with WebDev Arena, the gold-standard for human preference in web development, and over 90% pairwise agreement with human experts. This establishes ArtifactsBench as the first framework to reliably automate the assessment of human-perceived quality at scale. Our analysis provides a high-resolution map of the current SOTA, revealing that generalist models often outperform domain-specific ones. We open-source ArtifactsBench, including the benchmark, evaluation harness, and baseline results at https://artifactsbenchmark.github.io/, to provide the community with a scalable and accurate tool to accelerate the development of user-centric generative models.
- Level
- University Undergraduates and entry-level professionals
- Scored
- Graded by a model A language model scores each response, usually against a rubric.
- Answers
- Open-ended Free-form text, documents, designs or media judged as a whole.
MiniMax-M2 leads with 66.8% among models released by Jul 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 Jul 2026, and nobody has reported a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:
- GPT-6 Astra
- Claude Opus 5.5
- GPT-6.1 Terra
- GPT-6.1 Sol
- and 16 more
- 1
MiniMax-M2 66.8%
- 2
Seed2.0 Pro 66.6%
- 3
Solar Open 2 55.9%
- 4
Hunyuan-A13B-Instruct 43%
- 5
MAI-Code-1-Flash 36.4%
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 66.8% | Oct 2025 | Model card | |
| 2 | | 66.6% | Feb 2026 | Model card | |
| 3 | | 55.9% | Jul 2026 | Model card | |
| 4 | | 43% | Jun 2025 | Model card | |
| 5 | | 36.4% | Jun 2026 | Model card |
The benchmark's own leaderboard has 21 entries, 20 of them models we track. We plot every source in the charts below.
3 models have held number one since its release in Jul 2025
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release. We draw one row each for the benchmark’s own leaderboard and what labs claim in their cards.
Scores over time
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
2 labs put it in a launch post in the last six months
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.
| Date | Launch post | Score | As the post writes it |
|---|---|---|---|
| 22 Jul 2026 | 55.9 | ArtifactsBench | |
| 2 Jun 2026 | 36.4 | Artifacts Bench | |
| 14 Feb 2026 | 66.6 | ArtifactsBench | |
| 27 Oct 2025 | 66.8 | ArtifactsBench | |
| 27 Jun 2025 | 43 | ArtifactsBench |
4 system cards report it, from 4 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.
| Date | Document | Score | As the document writes it | Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 22 Jul 2026 | | 55.9 | ArtifactsBench (Table 3) | Capabilities |
| 2 Jun 2026 | | 36.4 | Artifacts Bench, Visual coding, Acc (Core reasoning table) | Capabilities |
| 14 Feb 2026 | | 66.6 | ArtifactsBench (Table 11) | Capabilities |
| 26 Jun 2025 | | 43 | ArtifactsBench, slow-thinking (Table 3) | Capabilities |
More in Coding
- SWE-bench Verified In use 500 human-validated GitHub issues from 12 Python repos. Agent writes a patch that must pass hidden tests. Claude Opus 4.7 83.5%
- SWE-bench Multilingual In use 300 GitHub-issue tasks across nine programming languages in SWE-bench format. Patch graded by repository tests. Claude Opus 5.5 93.9%
- LiveCodeBench v6 In use Competitive programming problems collected after model cutoffs from LeetCode, AtCoder, Codeforces. Scored pass@1 on hidden tests.
DeepSeek-V4-Pro 93.5%
- DeepSWE In use 113 original long-horizon engineering tasks across 91 repos and five languages, written from scratch. Hand-written verifiers accept alternative solutions. GPT-6 Astra 74.1%
- SciCode In use Scientist-curated research coding problems split into subproblems across natural sciences. Code checked against test cases.
Seed2.1 Pro 59.8%
- Codeforces rating In use Model solves recent Codeforces contest problems. An Elo-style rating is computed from simulated contest performance.
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 3,471