MedXpertQA-MM
Models answer expert-level medical exam questions that combine images with clinical records and test results. Scoring is accuracy.
This is the multimodal subset of MedXpertQA, which has 4,460 questions in total across its Text and MM subsets.
In the authors’ words
We introduce MedXpertQA, a highly challenging and comprehensive benchmark to evaluate expert-level medical knowledge and advanced reasoning. MedXpertQA includes 4,460 questions spanning 17 specialties and 11 body systems. It includes two subsets, Text for text evaluation and MM for multimodal evaluation. Notably, MM introduces expert-level exam questions with diverse images and rich clinical information, including patient records and examination results, setting it apart from traditional medical multimodal benchmarks with simple QA pairs generated from image captions. MedXpertQA applies rigorous filtering and augmentation to address the insufficient difficulty of existing benchmarks like MedQA, and incorporates specialty board questions to improve clinical relevance and comprehensiveness. We perform data synthesis to mitigate data leakage risk and conduct multiple rounds of expert reviews to ensure accuracy and reliability. We evaluate 18 leading models on \benchmark. Moreover, medicine is deeply connected to real-world decision-making, providing a rich and representative setting for assessing reasoning abilities beyond mathematics and code. To this end, we develop a reasoning-oriented subset to facilitate the assessment of o1-like models. Code and data are available at: https://github.com/TsinghuaC3I/MedXpertQA
- Level
- Expert Specialists with years of training, often over hours of work
- Scored
- Checked automatically A program checks the result against an answer key, unit tests or the expected final state.
- Answers
- Multiple choice
Qwen 3.8 Max leads with 80.4%
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 80.4%
- 2
Seed2.0 Lite (0428) 79.6%
- 3
Muse Spark 78.4%
- 4
Qwen3.7-Plus 71%
- 5
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 70%
- 6
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B 67.3%
- 7
Gemma 4 31B IT 61.3%
- 8
Gemma 4 26B A4B 58.1%
- 9
Qwen3.5-Omni-Plus 54.7%
- 10
DiffusionGemma 26B A4B 49%
- 11
EXAONE 4.5 33B 42.1%
- 12
Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 26.9%
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 80.4% | Aug 2026 | Model card | |
| 2 | | 79.6% | Apr 2026 | Model card | |
| 3 | | 78.4% | Apr 2026 | Model card | |
| 4 | | 71% | Jun 2026 | Model card | |
| 5 | | 70% | Feb 2026 | Model card | |
| 6 | | 67.3% | Feb 2026 | Model card | |
| 7 | | 61.3% | Apr 2026 | Model card | |
| 8 | | 58.1% | Apr 2026 | Model card | |
| 9 | | 54.7% | Mar 2026 | Model card | |
| 10 | | 49% | Jun 2026 | Model card | |
| 11 | | 42.1% | Apr 2026 | Model card | |
| 12 | | 26.9% | Oct 2026 | Model card |
The benchmark's own leaderboard has 9 models. 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.
Scores over time
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
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.
| Date | Launch post | Score | As the post writes it |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3 Aug 2026 | 80.4 | MedXpertQA-MM | |
| 10 Jun 2026 | 49 | MedXPertQA MM | |
| 1 Jun 2026 | 71 | MedXpertQA-MM | |
| 28 Apr 2026 | 79.6 | MedXpertQA-MM | |
| 9 Apr 2026 | 42.1 | MedXpertQA-MM | |
| 8 Apr 2026 | 78.4 | MedXpertQA (MM) | |
| 2 Apr 2026 | 58.1 | MedXPertQA MM | |
| 2 Apr 2026 | 61.3 | MedXPertQA MM | |
| 30 Mar 2026 | 54.7 | MedXpertQA-MM | |
| 24 Feb 2026 | 67.3 | MedXpertQA-MM | |
| 16 Feb 2026 | 70 | MedXpertQA-MM |
5 system cards report it, from 4 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.
| Date | Document | Score | As the document writes it | Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 23 Oct 2026 | | 26.9 | MedXpertQA Vision, reasoning, 23.10 non-reasoning (Table 8) | Health |
| 24 Jul 2026 | | 61.3 | MedXPertQA MM, thinking, max resolution (Table 6) | Capabilities |
| 24 Jul 2026 | | 58.1 | MedXPertQA MM, thinking, max resolution (Table 6) | Capabilities |
| 17 Apr 2026 | | 54.7 | MedXpertQA-MM (Table 6) | Health |
| 9 Apr 2026 | | 42.1 | MedXpertQA-MM (Table 2, Reasoning mode) | Health |
More in Law, finance and medicine
- HealthBench Professional In use 525 physician-authored tasks from real clinician chats (care consult, documentation, research) with physician-adjudicated rubrics. Claude Sonnet 5.5 69.2%
- HealthBench In use 5,000 realistic health conversations graded against physician-written rubrics. A length-adjusted variant penalizes verbosity. GPT-5 67.2%
- KBL In use Models answer Korean legal knowledge and reasoning tasks and Korean bar exam questions. It has 7 knowledge tasks, 4 reasoning tasks and 2,510 bar exam items.
Solar Pro 4 77.5%
- KorMedMCQA In use Models answer 7,469 multiple-choice questions from Korean licensing exams for doctors, nurses, pharmacists and dentists, held from 2012 to 2024.
Solar Pro 4 93.2%
- PRBench In use Model answers 1,100 expert-written law and finance questions. LLM judge grades against weighted expert rubrics of 10-30 criteria each.
Muse Spark 1.3 61.6%
- FrontierFinance In use Agents answer 220 investment research queries from finance experts across six use cases of the investor workflow. Three judge models check each answer against 11,543 source-attributed rubrics. Claude Fable 5.1 55.9%