Benchmark Almanac

Creation-MMBench

Gemini 2.0 Pro 4.48 leads since Mar 2025 Not in model cards

Models write creative pieces grounded in up to nine images plus a role, background and instructions, across 765 cases in 51 tasks. A judge scores quality and visual fact alignment against case-specific criteria.

ICCV 2025 paper from the OpenCompass team. A text-only version is included for comparing LLMs.

In the authors’ words

Creativity is a fundamental aspect of intelligence, involving the ability to generate novel and appropriate solutions across diverse contexts. While Large Language Models (LLMs) have been extensively evaluated for their creative capabilities, the assessment of Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) in this domain remains largely unexplored. To address this gap, we introduce Creation-MMBench, a multimodal benchmark specifically designed to evaluate the creative capabilities of MLLMs in real-world, image-based tasks. The benchmark comprises 765 test cases spanning 51 fine-grained tasks. To ensure rigorous evaluation, we define instance-specific evaluation criteria for each test case, guiding the assessment of both general response quality and factual consistency with visual inputs. Experimental results reveal that current open-source MLLMs significantly underperform compared to proprietary models in creative tasks. Furthermore, our analysis demonstrates that visual fine-tuning can negatively impact the base LLM's creative abilities. Creation-MMBench provides valuable insights for advancing MLLM creativity and establishes a foundation for future improvements in multimodal generative intelligence. Full data and evaluation code is released on https://github.com/open-compass/Creation-MMBench.

Abstract of Creation-MMBench: Assessing Context-Aware Creative Intelligence in MLLM (arXiv:2503.14478, CC0)
Made by OpenCompass (Shanghai AI Laboratory) Released Mar 2025 Creative writing All tasks public Last model added Feb 2025 Scores refreshed 2 Nov 2026
Level
Everyday Most adults, without training
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.
21
Entries on its own leaderboard, 19 models we track

Gemini 2.0 Pro leads with 4.48 among models released by Feb 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 Feb 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 Gemini 2.0 Pro 4.48
  2. 2 GPT-4o Nov 2024 0.00
  3. 3 Gemini 1.5 Pro Sep 2024 -5.49
  4. 4 Qwen2.5-VL-72B -5.82
  5. 5 GPT-4.5 -5.88
  6. 6 InternVL2.5-78B-MPO -12.55
  7. 7 GPT-4o mini -13.56
  8. 8 Doubao-VL -14.09
  9. 9 InternVL2.5-8B-MPO -15.10
  10. 10 Claude 3.5 Sonnet (October 2024) -15.46
  11. 11 InternVL2_5-78B -16.43
  12. 12 Moonshot-v1-32k-vision -20.58
  13. 13 Qwen2-VL-72B-Instruct -22.45
  14. 14 InternVL2.5-8B -25.42
  15. 15 Qwen2.5-VL-7B -29.80
  16. 16 MiniCPM-o-2_6 -34.77
  17. 17 DeepSeek-VL2 -38.52
  18. 18 LLaVA-OneVision 72B -39.87
  19. 19 LLaVA-OneVision 7B -43.49
  20. 20 Qwen2-VL-7B-Instruct -43.76
  21. 21 VITA-1.5 -53.31
#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
1 Gemini 2.0 Pro 4.48 Feb 2025 Official leaderboard
2 GPT-4o Nov 2024 0.00 Nov 2024 Official leaderboard
3 Gemini 1.5 Pro Sep 2024 -5.49 Sep 2024 Official leaderboard
4 Qwen2.5-VL-72B -5.82 Jan 2025 Official leaderboard
5 GPT-4.5 -5.88 Feb 2025 Official leaderboard
6 InternVL2.5-78B-MPO -12.55 Dec 2024 Official leaderboard
7 GPT-4o mini -13.56 Jul 2024 Official leaderboard
8 Doubao-VL -14.09 Mar 2025 Official leaderboard
9 InternVL2.5-8B-MPO -15.10 Dec 2024 Official leaderboard
10 Claude 3.5 Sonnet (October 2024) -15.46 Oct 2024 Official leaderboard
11 InternVL2_5-78B -16.43 Dec 2024 Official leaderboard
12 Moonshot-v1-32k-vision -20.58 Mar 2025 Official leaderboard
13 Qwen2-VL-72B-Instruct -22.45 Aug 2024 Official leaderboard
14 InternVL2.5-8B -25.42 Dec 2024 Official leaderboard
15 Qwen2.5-VL-7B -29.80 Jan 2025 Official leaderboard
16 MiniCPM-o-2_6 -34.77 Jan 2025 Official leaderboard
17 DeepSeek-VL2 -38.52 Dec 2024 Official leaderboard
18 LLaVA-OneVision 72B -39.87 Aug 2024 Official leaderboard
19 LLaVA-OneVision 7B -43.49 Aug 2024 Official leaderboard
20 Qwen2-VL-7B-Instruct -43.76 Aug 2024 Official leaderboard
21 VITA-1.5 -53.31 Dec 2024 Official leaderboard

Number one over time

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

Google DeepMind
Own leaderboard Not tested since Mar 2025

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
-60.00 -40.00 -20.00 0.00 20.0 2025 -60.00 -40.00 -20.00 0.00 20.0 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.

More in Writing and taste

All 24 in Writing and taste
  • Design Bench (Moonshot) In use Models make graphic designs from direct prompts or few-shot reference images. An automated grader rates the results as Elo scores. Kimi K3.1 Pro 957
  • WritingBench Fading Models complete 1,000 real-world writing requests across 6 domains and 100 subdomains. A judge model scores each reply on five query-specific criteria. GPT-5 83.9
  • Creative Writing (MiniMax in-house) Only in system cards Models write creative pieces for real Hailuo AI user requests. Automatic assessments score the writing. MiniMax-Text-01 81.3%
  • DeepSeek Chinese functional writing evaluation Only in system cards Models answer 3,170 everyday Chinese writing prompts such as reports, emails and speeches. Pairwise judging against a baseline model gives a win rate. DeepSeek-V4-Pro 62.6%
  • Slide generation human evaluation (Z.ai) Only in system cards People compare HTML slide decks from two models on content, layout and visual quality. Metric is overall win rate. GLM-5 67.5%
  • Task-dependent output homogenization evaluation Only in system cards Models answer prompts several times. A judge scores functional diversity where it is wanted and consistency where one answer is right. Muse Spark 0.21