Benchmark Almanac

CountQA

Qwen 3.8 Max 82.4% leads since Aug 2026 In use

Models count objects in over 1,500 real-world photos with dense clutter and occlusion. Scoring is accuracy on the count.

In the authors’ words

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) demonstrate remarkable fluency in understanding visual scenes, yet they exhibit a critical lack in a fundamental cognitive skill: object counting. This blind spot severely limits their reliability in real-world applications. To date, this capability has been largely unevaluated in complex scenarios, as existing benchmarks either feature sparse object densities or are confined to specific visual domains, failing to test models under realistic conditions. Addressing this gap, we introduce CountQA, a challenging new benchmark designed to probe this deficiency. Comprising over 1,500 question-answer pairs, CountQA features real-world images with high object density, clutter, and occlusion. We investigate this weakness by evaluating 15 prominent MLLMs on the CountQA benchmark and reveal that the top-performing model achieves a mere 42.9% accuracy, with performance declining as object counts rise. By providing a dedicated benchmark to diagnose and rectify this core weakness, CountQA paves the way for a new generation of MLLMs that are not only descriptively fluent but also numerically grounded and spatially aware. We will open-source the dataset and code upon paper acceptance to foster further research.

Abstract of CountQA: How Well Do MLLMs Count in the Wild? (arXiv:2508.06585, CC0)
Made by Google Released Aug 2025 Spatial reasoning and counting All tasks public Last in a launch post Aug 2026 Last model added Aug 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
Short answer A number, word or short string matched to a key.
3
Models scored in lab cards
2
Launch posts list it, from 1 lab
1
System card reports it, from 1 lab

Qwen 3.8 Max leads with 82.4% among models released by Aug 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 Aug 2026, and nobody has reported a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:

  1. 1 Qwen 3.8 Max 82.4%
  2. 2 Qwen3.7-Plus 77%
  3. 3 STEP3-VL-10B 33.7%
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Qwen 3.8 Max 82.4% Aug 2026 Model card
2 Qwen3.7-Plus 77% Jun 2026 Model card
3 STEP3-VL-10B 33.7% Jan 2026 Model card

3 models have held number one since its release in Aug 2025

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

StepFun Qwen
Lab claims Not tested since Aug 2026
Qwen 3.8 Max 82.4%

Scores over time

All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.

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 STEP3-VL-10B 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Qwen 3.8 Max STEP3-VL-10B

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.

Qwen
DateLaunch postScoreAs the post writes it
3 Aug 2026 Qwen 3.8 Max 82.4 CountQA
1 Jun 2026 Qwen3.7-Plus 77 CountQA

One system card reports it

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
14 Jan 2026 STEP3-VL-10B technical report 33.7 CountQA, SeRe (Tables 1 and 3). PaCoRe 38.29 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%