CC-OCR-Bench-V2
Models process 7,093 hard real-world document samples across five OCR tracks, including parsing and document QA. Each track uses its own metric.
This is a new version, and the original CC-OCR from December 2024 is a separate benchmark.
In the authors’ words
Recent Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) have achieved remarkable progress on OCR-centric document understanding and processing tasks. Existing benchmarks primarily evaluate LMMs across diverse tasks to reflect practical document-processing workflows or analyze how document characteristics influence model performance. However, they provide limited insight into the reliability of LMMs under real-world document acquisition conditions, where factors such as lighting, screen displays, imaging quality, and capture methods can substantially affect performance. To bridge this gap, we present CC-OCR v2, a comprehensive benchmark for attributing LMM failures in real-world document processing. CC-OCR v2 provides a unified evaluation framework covering five core document-processing capabilities through 16 subtasks, 74 application scenarios, and 7,093 samples. The benchmark spans five evaluation tracks, ten document categories, and 32 languages in the recognition suite. Beyond task-level evaluation, each sample is annotated with ten fine-grained document factors, enabling systematic attribution of model failures across document types and acquisition conditions. Extensive experiments on 17 representative LMMs reveal substantial performance variation across tasks, document categories, and real-world conditions. Moreover, models with comparable overall accuracy often exhibit fundamentally different failure patterns under specific document factors, highlighting a significant gap between benchmark-level performance and reliable deployment in practical applications. The dataset and evaluation toolkit are publicly available at https://github.com/eioss/CC-OCR-V2.
- 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
- Short answer A number, word or short string matched to a key.
Qwen 3.8 Max leads with 79.6%
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.
- 1
Qwen 3.8 Max 79.6%
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 79.6% | Aug 2026 | Model card |
Scores over time
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
One lab 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3 Aug 2026 | 79.6 | CC-OCR-Bench-V2 |
Versions
More 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%