Benchmark Almanac

Blueprint-Bench

GPT-5 0.43 leads since Sep 2025 Not in model cards

Models turn about 20 interior photos of each of 50 apartments into a 2D floor plan. Scored by similarity of room connectivity and size ranking to the true plan.

Most 2025 models scored at or below the random baseline of 0.279. Andon Labs replaced it with Blueprint-Bench 2 in 2026-05, with an agent harness and new scoring.

In the authors’ words

We introduce Blueprint-Bench, a benchmark designed to evaluate spatial reasoning capabilities in AI models through the task of converting apartment photographs into accurate 2D floor plans. While the input modality (photographs) is well within the training distribution of modern multimodal models, the task of spatial reconstruction requires genuine spatial intelligence: inferring room layouts, understanding connectivity, and maintaining consistent scale. We evaluate leading language models (GPT-5, Claude 4 Opus, Gemini 2.5 Pro, Grok-4), image generation models (GPT-Image, NanoBanana), and agent systems (Codex CLI, Claude Code) on a dataset of 50 apartments with approximately 20 interior images each. Our scoring algorithm measures similarity between generated and ground-truth floor plans based on room connectivity graphs and size rankings. Results reveal a significant blind spot in current AI capabilities: most models perform at or below a random baseline, while human performance remains substantially superior. Image generation models particularly struggle with instruction following, while agent-based approaches with iterative refinement capabilities show no meaningful improvement over single-pass generation. Blueprint-Bench provides the first numerical framework for comparing spatial intelligence across different model architectures. We will continue evaluating new models as they are released and welcome community submissions, monitoring for the emergence of spatial intelligence in generalist AI systems.

Abstract of Blueprint-Bench: Comparing spatial intelligence of LLMs, agents and image models (arXiv:2509.25229, CC0)
Made by Andon Labs Released Sep 2025 Spatial reasoning and counting Tasks kept private Last model added Sep 2025 Scores refreshed 2 Nov 2026
Level
Everyday Most adults, without training
Scored
Checked automatically A program checks the result against an answer key, unit tests or the expected final state.
Answers
Open-ended Free-form text, documents, designs or media judged as a whole.
10
Entries on its own leaderboard, 8 models we track

GPT-5 leads with 0.43 among models released by Sep 2025

Best score per entry from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on 2 Nov 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.

The newest model with a score here came out in Sep 2025, and nobody has tested a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:

  1. 1 GPT-5 0.43
  2. 2 Gemini 2.5 Pro Jun 2025 0.42
  3. 3 GPT-5 mini 0.40
  4. 4 Grok 4 0.39
  5. 5 Gemini 2.5 Flash Sep 2025 0.36
  6. 6 Claude Opus 4 0.35
  7. 7 GPT Image 0.30
  8. 8 Claude Sonnet 4 0.27
  9. 9 NanoBanana (Gemini 2.5 Flash Image) 0.17
  10. 10 GPT-4o Mar 2025 0.13
#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
1 GPT-5 0.43 LLM Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
2 Gemini 2.5 Pro Jun 2025 0.42 LLM Jun 2025 Official leaderboard
3 GPT-5 mini 0.40 LLM Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
4 Grok 4 0.39 LLM Jul 2025 Official leaderboard
5 Gemini 2.5 Flash Sep 2025 0.36 LLM Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
6 Claude Opus 4 0.35 Agent May 2025 Official leaderboard
7 GPT Image 0.30 Image Model Official leaderboard
8 Claude Sonnet 4 0.27 LLM May 2025 Official leaderboard
9 NanoBanana (Gemini 2.5 Flash Image) 0.17 Image Model Official leaderboard
10 GPT-4o Mar 2025 0.13 LLM Mar 2025 Official leaderboard

Number one over time

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

OpenAI
Own leaderboard Not tested since Sep 2025
GPT-5 0.43

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
0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 2025 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 2025

No lab model card reports it yet

We read the headline results of 479 launch posts from 51 labs, and none of them list this benchmark.

Versions

More in Vision

All 234 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. Kimi K3.1 Pro 84.1%
  • 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%
  • 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%
  • DocVQA In use Models answer 50,000 questions about 12,000 scanned document images by reading their text and layout. Scoring is ANLS, a string similarity to reference answers. Seed1.5-VL 96.9%