Benchmark Almanac

MIEB Lite

Only in system cards

Embedding models complete the MIEB Lite task set. The official API reports the mean across task types.

This task set has a separate official score endpoint. Task-type scores remain auxiliary metrics.

Made by
MTEB community
Kind
General visual questions
Scored
Checked automatically
Answers
Short answer
Tasks
All public
Last in a system card
October 2026
Last model added
October 2026
Scores refreshed
November 12th, 2026

In the authors’ words

Image representations are often evaluated through disjointed, task-specific protocols, leading to a fragmented understanding of model capabilities. For instance, it is unclear whether an image embedding model adept at clustering images is equally good at retrieving relevant images given a piece of text. We introduce the Massive Image Embedding Benchmark (MIEB) to evaluate the performance of image and image-text embedding models across the broadest spectrum to date. MIEB spans 38 languages across 130 individual tasks, which we group into 8 high-level categories. We benchmark 50 models across our benchmark, finding that no single method dominates across all task categories. We reveal hidden capabilities in advanced vision models such as their accurate visual representation of texts, and their yet limited capabilities in interleaved encodings and matching images and texts in the presence of confounders. We also show that the performance of vision encoders on MIEB correlates highly with their performance when used in multimodal large language models. Our code, dataset, and leaderboard are publicly available at https://github.com/embeddings-benchmark/mteb.

Abstract of MIEB: Massive Image Embedding Benchmark (arXiv:2504.10471, CC0)
1
Model scored in lab cards
1
System card reports it, from 1 lab

EmbeddingGemma 2 leads with 65.7

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.

EmbeddingGemma 2 leads with 63.5 across all independent runs

Best score per model across the official leaderboard, Epoch AI’s own runs and any board Epoch AI copied. Each bar and row names its source.

  1. 1 EmbeddingGemma 2 65.7

Source: Labs’ model cards

Source: Official MIEB Lite leaderboard

#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 EmbeddingGemma 2 65.7 Oct 2026 Lab model card
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 EmbeddingGemma 2 63.5 Oct 2026 Official leaderboard

The benchmark's own leaderboard has 51 entries, 1 of them models we track. Switch the scores above to rank them together.

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
63.5 64.0 64.5 65.0 65.5 66.0 63.5 64.0 64.5 65.0 65.5 66.0

Sources: Official MIEB Lite leaderboard and labs’ model cards

Labs report it only in system cards

We read the headline results of 522 launch posts from 52 labs, and none of them list this benchmark. Some system cards do, below.

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
Oct 6, 2026 EmbeddingGemma 2 model card 65.7 MIEB lite, Mean(TaskType), full precision, 768d Capabilities

One lab claim next to the leaderboard

Each score a lab reported for its own model, beside the same model's best score on the leaderboard. Gaps mostly come from different harnesses, effort levels and task subsets. Every benchmark.

Model Lab says Board says Gap
EmbeddingGemma 2 65.7 MIEB lite, Mean(TaskType), full precision, 768d 63.5 Leaderboard +2.15

More in Vision

All 281 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. GPT-5.6 Sol 84.6%
  • 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%
  • MMStar In use Models answer 1,500 human-curated image questions that cannot be solved without the image, across 6 core capabilities. Scored by accuracy. Qwen 3.8 Max 85.9%
  • 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%