Benchmark Almanac

PresentBench

Qwen 3.8 Max 79.6% leads since Aug 2026 In use

Models generate full slide decks from background materials for 238 real-world cases. A judge scores each deck against about 54 hand-written checklist items.

In the authors’ words

Slides serve as a critical medium for conveying information in presentation-oriented scenarios such as academia, education, and business. Despite their importance, creating high-quality slide decks remains time-consuming and cognitively demanding. Recent advances in generative models, such as Nano Banana Pro, have made automated slide generation increasingly feasible. However, existing evaluations of slide generation are often coarse-grained and rely on holistic judgments, making it difficult to accurately assess model capabilities or track meaningful advances in the field. In practice, the lack of fine-grained, verifiable evaluation criteria poses a critical bottleneck for both research and real-world deployment. In this paper, we propose PresentBench, a fine-grained, rubric-based benchmark for evaluating automated real-world slide generation. It contains 238 evaluation instances, each supplemented with background materials required for slide creation. Moreover, we manually design an average of 54.1 checklist items per instance, each formulated as a binary question, to enable fine-grained, instance-specific evaluation of the generated slide decks. Extensive experiments show that PresentBench provides more reliable evaluation results than existing methods, and exhibits significantly stronger alignment with human preferences. Furthermore, our benchmark reveals that NotebookLM significantly outperforms other slide generation methods, highlighting substantial recent progress in this domain.

Abstract of PresentBench: A Fine-Grained Rubric-Based Benchmark for Slide Generation (arXiv:2603.07244, CC0)
Made by PresentBench team Released Mar 2026 Documents and spreadsheets All tasks public Last in a launch post Sep 2026 Last model added Sep 2026
Level
University Undergraduates and entry-level professionals
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.
3
Models scored in lab cards
2
Launch posts list it, from 2 labs
1
System card reports it, from 1 lab

Qwen 3.8 Max leads with 79.6%

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. 1 Qwen 3.8 Max 79.6%
  2. 2 Step 5 Preview 76.8%
  3. 3 Seed2.1 Pro 54.6%
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Qwen 3.8 Max 79.6% Aug 2026 Model card
2 Step 5 Preview 76.8% Sep 2026 Model card
3 Seed2.1 Pro 54.6% Jun 2026 Model card

2 models have held number one since its release in Mar 2026

Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.

ByteDance Seed Qwen
Lab claims 2 leaders
Qwen 3.8 Max 79.6%

Scores over time

All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.

Reported by the lab in its model card Best so far
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Qwen 3.8 Max Seed2.1 Pro 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Qwen 3.8 Max Seed2.1 Pro

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.

Qwen
StepFun
DateLaunch postScoreAs the post writes it
20 Sep 2026 Step 5 Preview 76.8 PresentBench
3 Aug 2026 Qwen 3.8 Max 79.6 PresentBench

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
23 Jun 2026 Seed2.1 Pro model card 54.6 PresentBench (Table 1) Capabilities

More in Economic work

All 91 in Economic work
  • JobBench In use 130 tasks from 35 occupations workers most want delegated. Agent works through messy reference files, graded by fact-anchored binary rubrics. GLM-5.3 61.4%
  • GDPval In use Real work tasks from 44 occupations with reference files. Experts blindly compare model deliverables with expert work. Metric is win-or-tie rate. Seed2.1 Pro 87.9%
  • GDPval-AA v2.1 In use Agents with shell and web access complete 220 GDPval gold tasks from 44 occupations. Blind pairwise comparisons give Elo ratings. Claude Opus 5.5 1,846
  • AA-Briefcase v1.1 In use Version 1.1 of Artificial Analysis's multi-hour office work evaluation, with Elo ratings fitted by Crowd-BT. Claude Opus 5.5 1,822
  • CoWorkBench In use Agent completes long-horizon productivity tasks across computer science, finance, law and medicine. Qwen in-house scoring (method unpublished). Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash 75.3%
  • OfficeQA In use Grounded reasoning over a large corpus of U.S. Treasury Bulletin documents: locate tables and compute precise numeric answers. Claude Opus 4.7 86.3%