Creation-MMBench
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.
- 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.
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:
- GPT-6 Astra
- Claude Opus 5.5
- GPT-6.1 Terra
- GPT-6.1 Sol
- and 16 more
- 4.48
Gemini 2.0 Pro
- 0.00 GPT-4o
- -5.49
Gemini 1.5 Pro
- -5.82
Qwen2.5-VL-72B
- -5.88 GPT-4.5
- -12.55
InternVL2.5-78B-MPO
- -13.56 GPT-4o mini
- -14.09 Doubao-VL
- -15.10
InternVL2.5-8B-MPO
- -15.46 Claude 3.5 Sonnet (October 2024)
- -16.43
InternVL2_5-78B
- -20.58 Moonshot-v1-32k-vision
- -22.45 Qwen2-VL-72B-Instruct
- -25.42
InternVL2.5-8B
- -29.80
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
- -34.77 MiniCPM-o-2_6
- -38.52
DeepSeek-VL2
- -39.87 LLaVA-OneVision 72B
- -43.49
LLaVA-OneVision 7B
- -43.76 Qwen2-VL-7B-Instruct
- -53.31 VITA-1.5
- 1
Gemini 2.0 Pro 4.48
- 2 GPT-4o Nov 2024 0.00
- 3
Gemini 1.5 Pro Sep 2024 -5.49
- 4
Qwen2.5-VL-72B -5.82
- 5 GPT-4.5 -5.88
- 6
InternVL2.5-78B-MPO -12.55
- 7 GPT-4o mini -13.56
- 8 Doubao-VL -14.09
- 9
InternVL2.5-8B-MPO -15.10
- 10 Claude 3.5 Sonnet (October 2024) -15.46
- 11
InternVL2_5-78B -16.43
- 12 Moonshot-v1-32k-vision -20.58
- 13 Qwen2-VL-72B-Instruct -22.45
- 14
InternVL2.5-8B -25.42
- 15
Qwen2.5-VL-7B -29.80
- 16 MiniCPM-o-2_6 -34.77
- 17
DeepSeek-VL2 -38.52
- 18 LLaVA-OneVision 72B -39.87
- 19
LLaVA-OneVision 7B -43.49
- 20 Qwen2-VL-7B-Instruct -43.76
- 21 VITA-1.5 -53.31
| # | Entry | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 4.48 | Feb 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 2 | GPT-4o Nov 2024 | 0.00 | Nov 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 3 | | -5.49 | Sep 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 4 | | -5.82 | Jan 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 5 | GPT-4.5 | -5.88 | Feb 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 6 | | -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 | | -15.10 | Dec 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 10 | Claude 3.5 Sonnet (October 2024) | -15.46 | Oct 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 11 | | -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 | | -25.42 | Dec 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 15 | | -29.80 | Jan 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 16 | MiniCPM-o-2_6 | -34.77 | Jan 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 17 | | -38.52 | Dec 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 18 | LLaVA-OneVision 72B | -39.87 | Aug 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 19 | | -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.
Scores over time
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
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
- 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