Point-Bench
Models point to the image location a language request describes, in about 1,000 tasks across five reasoning categories. A point inside the target mask counts as correct.
Part of PointArena with the Point-Battle voting arena and the Point-Act robot setup. The mask rule is an assumption from the task design.
In the authors’ words
Pointing serves as a fundamental and intuitive mechanism for grounding language within visual contexts, with applications spanning robotics, assistive technologies, and interactive AI systems. While recent multimodal models have started to support pointing capabilities, existing benchmarks typically focus only on referential object localization tasks. We introduce PointArena, a comprehensive platform for evaluating multimodal pointing across diverse reasoning scenarios. PointArena comprises three components: (1) Point-Bench, a curated dataset containing approximately 1,000 pointing tasks across five reasoning categories; (2) Point-Battle, an interactive, web-based arena facilitating blind, pairwise model comparisons, which has already gathered over 4,500 anonymized votes; and (3) Point-Act, a real-world robotic manipulation system allowing users to directly evaluate multimodal model pointing capabilities in practical settings. We conducted extensive evaluations of both state-of-the-art open-source and proprietary multimodal models. Results indicate that Molmo-72B consistently outperforms other models, though proprietary models increasingly demonstrate comparable performance. Additionally, we find that supervised training specifically targeting pointing tasks significantly enhances model performance. Across our multi-stage evaluation pipeline, we also observe strong correlations, underscoring the critical role of precise pointing capabilities in enabling multimodal models to effectively bridge abstract reasoning with concrete, real-world actions. Project page: https://pointarena.github.io/
- 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.
gemini-robotics-er-1.5-preview leads with 67.1% among models released by Sep 2025
Best score per model from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on 2 Nov 2026. Where a model ran with several settings or harnesses, we keep its best.
The newest model with a score here came out in Sep 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
- 67.1
gemini-robotics-er-1.5-preview
- 63.8
Molmo-72B
- 63.3
Molmo-7B-O
- 62.8
Gemini 2.5 Pro
- 61.6
Molmo-7B-D
- 59.0
Qwen2.5-VL-72B
- 59.0
Qwen2.5-VL-32B
- 56.3
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
- 47.0
Gemini 2.0 Flash
- 47.0
Gemini 2.5 Flash
- 43.5 o3
- 33.3 GPT-4.1
- 29.5 GPT-4o
- 22.2 Claude 3.7 Sonnet
- 20.5 Grok 2 Vision (1212)
- 18.0 LLaVA-OneVision 72B
- 6.32
LLaVA-OneVision 7B
- 1
gemini-robotics-er-1.5-preview 67.1%
- 2
Molmo-72B 63.8%
- 3
Molmo-7B-O 63.3%
- 4
Gemini 2.5 Pro May 2025 62.8%
- 5
Molmo-7B-D 61.6%
- 6
Qwen2.5-VL-72B 59%
- 7
Qwen2.5-VL-32B 59%
- 8
Qwen2.5-VL-7B 56.3%
- 9
Gemini 2.0 Flash Feb 2025 47%
- 10
Gemini 2.5 Flash Apr 2025 47%
- 11 o3 43.5%
- 12 GPT-4.1 33.3%
- 13 GPT-4o Mar 2025 29.5%
- 14 Claude 3.7 Sonnet 22.2%
- 15 Grok 2 Vision (1212) 20.5%
- 16 LLaVA-OneVision 72B 18%
- 17
LLaVA-OneVision 7B 6.32%
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 67.1% | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 2 | | 63.8% | Sep 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 3 | | 63.3% | Sep 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 4 | | 62.8% | May 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 5 | | 61.6% | Sep 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 6 | | 59% | Jan 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 7 | | 59% | Mar 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 8 | | 56.3% | Jan 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 9 | | 47% | Feb 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 10 | | 47% | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 11 | o3 | 43.5% | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 12 | GPT-4.1 | 33.3% | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 13 | GPT-4o Mar 2025 | 29.5% | Mar 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 14 | Claude 3.7 Sonnet | 22.2% | Feb 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 15 | Grok 2 Vision (1212) | 20.5% | Dec 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 16 | LLaVA-OneVision 72B | 18% | Aug 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 17 | | 6.32% | Aug 2024 | Official leaderboard |
Labs report scores for 3 models in their cards. We plot every source in the charts below.
2 models have held number one since its release in May 2025
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.
Labs headline it less often now, last in Dec 2025
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18 Dec 2025 | 76.5 | Point-Bench |
3 system cards report it, from 2 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 21 Mar 2026 | | 76.5 | Point-Bench (Table 2) | Capabilities |
| 14 Feb 2026 | | 81.4 | Point-Bench (Table 8) | Capabilities |
| 25 Sep 2025 | | 71.6 | Point-Bench (Table 19, thinking on). Thinking off 73.3 | Capabilities |
More 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%