Benchmark Almanac

MTVQA-Test

Qwen 3.8 Max 56.6% leads since Aug 2026 Fading

Models answer 6,778 expert-written questions about text in 2,116 images across 9 languages, such as Arabic, Japanese, and Thai. Scoring is accuracy.

Humans score 79.7 in the paper, far above the models tested at release.

In the authors’ words

Text-Centric Visual Question Answering (TEC-VQA) in its proper format not only facilitates human-machine interaction in text-centric visual environments but also serves as a de facto gold proxy to evaluate AI models in the domain of text-centric scene understanding. Nonetheless, most existing TEC-VQA benchmarks have focused on high-resource languages like English and Chinese. Despite pioneering works to expand multilingual QA pairs in non-text-centric VQA datasets through translation engines, the translation-based protocol encounters a substantial "visual-textual misalignment" problem when applied to TEC-VQA. Specifically, it prioritizes the text in question-answer pairs while disregarding the visual text present in images. Moreover, it fails to address complexities related to nuanced meaning, contextual distortion, language bias, and question-type diversity. In this work, we tackle multilingual TEC-VQA by introducing MTVQA, the first benchmark featuring high-quality human expert annotations across 9 diverse languages, consisting of 6,778 question-answer pairs across 2,116 images. Further, by comprehensively evaluating numerous state-of-the-art Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs), including Qwen2-VL, GPT-4o, GPT-4V, Claude3, and Gemini, on the MTVQA benchmark, it is evident that there is still a large room for performance improvement (Qwen2-VL scoring 30.9 versus 79.7 for human performance), underscoring the value of MTVQA. Additionally, we supply multilingual training data within the MTVQA dataset, demonstrating that straightforward fine-tuning with this data can substantially enhance multilingual TEC-VQA performance. We aspire that MTVQA will offer the research community fresh insights and stimulate further exploration in multilingual visual text comprehension. The project homepage is available at https://bytedance.github.io/MTVQA/.

Abstract of MTVQA: Benchmarking Multilingual Text-Centric Visual Question Answering (arXiv:2405.11985, CC0)
Made by ByteDance Released May 2024 Documents, charts and text in images All tasks public Last in a launch post Aug 2026 , dropped before it saturated Last model added Aug 2026 Scores refreshed 2 Nov 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.
6
Models scored in lab cards
2
Launch posts list it, from 2 labs
5
System cards report it, from 5 labs

Qwen 3.8 Max leads with 56.6% 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 56.6%
  2. 2 Seed2.0 Pro 51.1%
  3. 3 InternVL3.5-241B-A28B 39.3%
  4. 4 Qwen2.5-VL-72B 31.7%
  5. 5 Nemotron Nano 12B v2 VL 24.3%
  6. 6 Aya Vision 32B 23.5%
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Qwen 3.8 Max 56.6% Aug 2026 Model card
2 Seed2.0 Pro 51.1% Feb 2026 Model card
3 InternVL3.5-241B-A28B 39.3% Aug 2025 Model card
4 Qwen2.5-VL-72B 31.7% Feb 2025 Model card
5 Nemotron Nano 12B v2 VL 24.3% Nov 2025 Model card
6 Aya Vision 32B 23.5% May 2025 Model card

The benchmark's own leaderboard has 26 entries, 18 of them models we track. We plot every source in the charts below.

4 models have held number one since its release in May 2024

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.

Anthropic OpenAI Other labs Shanghai AI Lab Qwen ByteDance Seed
Own leaderboard Not tested since Dec 2024
Lab claims Not tested since Aug 2026
Qwen 3.8 Max 56.6%

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 Best so far
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2024 2025 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Qwen 3.8 Max Seed2.0 Pro InternVL3.5-241B-A28B InternVL2_5-78B GPT-4o Gemini 1.0 Ultra 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2024 2025 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Qwen 3.8 Max InternVL3.5-241B-A28B

Labs headline it less often now, last in Aug 2026

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.

Shanghai AI Lab
Qwen
DateLaunch postScoreAs the post writes it
3 Aug 2026 Qwen 3.8 Max 56.6 MTVQA-Test
25 Aug 2025 InternVL3.5-241B-A28B 39.3 MTVQA

5 system cards report it, from 5 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.

DateDocumentScoreAs the document writes itSection
14 Feb 2026 Seed2.0 Pro model card 51.1 MTVQA, DeepSeek-V3-0324 judge (Table 8) Capabilities
6 Nov 2025 Nemotron Nano 12B v2 VL technical report 24.3 MTVQA Avg, reasoning off (Table 5) Capabilities
25 Aug 2025 InternVL3.5-241B-A28B technical report 39.3 MTVQA (avg) (Table 2, Table 8) Capabilities
13 May 2025 Aya Vision 32B technical report 23.5 MTVQA, VQA score, Aya Vision languages (Table 4) Capabilities
19 Feb 2025 Qwen2.5-VL-72B technical report 31.7 MTVQA (Table 3) 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%