Benchmark Almanac

Claw-Eval-MM

Claude Opus 4.6 54.7% leads since Apr 2026 In use

Agents complete the 101 multimodal tasks of Claw-Eval, such as video questions, document extraction, and webpage generation. Rubric items graded from run traces set scores.

This is the multimodal split of Claw-Eval, not a separate benchmark.

In the authors’ words

Large language models are increasingly deployed as autonomous agents for multi-step workflows in real-world software environments. However, existing agent benchmarks are limited by trajectory-opaque grading, underspecified safety and robustness evaluation, and narrow coverage of modalities and interaction paradigms. We introduce Claw-Eval, an end-to-end evaluation suite addressing these gaps with 300 human-verified tasks spanning 9 categories across three groups: general service orchestration, multimodal perception and interaction, and multi-turn professional dialogue. To enable trajectory-aware grading, each run is recorded through three independent evidence channels: execution traces, audit logs, and environment snapshots, yielding 2,159 fine-grained rubric items. The scoring protocol evaluates Completion, Safety, and Robustness, with Average Score, Pass@k, and Pass^k across three trials to distinguish genuine capability from lucky outcomes. Experiments on 14 frontier models show that: (1) Trajectory-opaque evaluation is systematically unreliable, missing 44% of safety violations and 13% of robustness failures detected by our framework. (2) Capability does not imply consistency, with Pass@3 remaining stable under error injection while Pass^3 dropping by up to 24 percentage points. (3) Agent capability is strongly multi-dimensional, with model rankings varying across task groups and metrics, indicating that our heterogeneous evaluation coverage is essential. Claw-Eval highlights directions for developing agents that are not only capable but reliably deployable.

Abstract of Claw-Eval: Towards Trustworthy Evaluation of Autonomous Agents (arXiv:2604.06132, CC0)
Made by Claw-Eval team Released Apr 2026 General visual questions All tasks public Last in a launch post Sep 2026 Last model added Sep 2026 Scores refreshed 2 Nov 2026
Level
University Undergraduates and entry-level professionals
Scored
Graded by a model A language model scores each response, usually against a rubric.
Answers
Agent task Many steps in a terminal, browser, desktop, app, game or robot.
11
Models scored on its own leaderboard
7
Launch posts list it, from 3 labs
2
System cards report it, from 2 labs

Claude Opus 4.6 leads with 54.7% among models released by Apr 2026

Best score per model from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on 2 Nov 2026. Where a model ran with several settings or harnesses, we keep its best.

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

  1. 1 Claude Opus 4.6 54.7%
  2. 2 GPT-5.4 54.4%
  3. 3 MiMo-V2.5 51.5%
  4. 4 Claude Sonnet 4.6 50.9%
  5. 5 Gemini 3 Flash 50.4%
  6. 6 Kimi K2.5 50.2%
  7. 7 Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 50.2%
  8. 8 Kimi K2.6 49.6%
  9. 9 GLM-5V-Turbo 47%
  10. 10 Gemini 3.1 Pro 45.7%
  11. 11 MiMo-V2-Omni 44.4%
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Claude Opus 4.6 54.7% Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
2 GPT-5.4 54.4% Mar 2026 Official leaderboard
3 MiMo-V2.5 51.5% Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
4 Claude Sonnet 4.6 50.9% Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
5 Gemini 3 Flash 50.4% Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
6 Kimi K2.5 50.2% Jan 2026 Official leaderboard
7 Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 50.2% Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
8 Kimi K2.6 49.6% Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
9 GLM-5V-Turbo 47% Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
10 Gemini 3.1 Pro 45.7% Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
11 MiMo-V2-Omni 44.4% Mar 2026 Official leaderboard

Labs report scores for 7 models in their cards. We plot every source in the charts below.

Number one over time

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.

Anthropic Xiaomi Corp Qwen
Own leaderboard Not tested since Apr 2026
Lab claims 3 leaders
Qwen 3.8 Max 74.8%

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 Reported by the lab in its model card Best so far
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Qwen 3.8 Max Qwen3.7-Plus Claude Opus 4.6 Gemini 3 Flash 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Qwen 3.8 Max Qwen3.7-Plus

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.

Xiaomi Corp
Qwen
ByteDance Seed
DateLaunch postScoreAs the post writes it
18 Sep 2026 Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash 61.9 ClawEval-MM Pass@3 60.4 Average 61.9
26 Aug 2026 Qwen3.8 Flash 60.4 Multimodal tool use ClawEval-MM Pass@3 64.4 Average 60.4
14 Aug 2026 Qwen 3.8 27B 56.9 Multimodal tool use ClawEval-MM Pass@3 57.4 Average 56.9
3 Aug 2026 Qwen 3.8 Max 74.8 ClawEval-MM (Pass@3 / avg) 77.2 / 74.8
23 Jun 2026 Seed2.1 Pro 51 Claw-Eval [Multimodal] (Pass^3)
1 Jun 2026 Qwen3.7-Plus 55.7 ClawEval-MM
22 Apr 2026 MiMo-V2.5 23.8 Claw-Eval Multimodal

2 system cards report it, from 2 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.

DateDocumentScoreAs the document writes itSection
22 Sep 2026 Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash technical report 61.9 ClawEval-MM Average of three trials, Pass@3 60.4 (Table 3) Capabilities
23 Jun 2026 Seed2.1 Pro model card 51 Claw-Eval [Multimodal], Pass^3 (Table 3) Capabilities

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%