Benchmark Almanac

UniREditBench

UniREdit-Bagel 78.2% tops its leaderboard Seedream 4.0 57% leads the models we track
Not in model cards

Image editing models carry out 2,700 edits that need reasoning, in real-world scenes and in game worlds with human-defined rules, across 8 primary and 18 secondary dimensions. A multimodal judge scores each edit against both a text reference and a ground-truth image.

The team also releases UniREdit-Data-100K, a synthetic training set made by the same pipeline. 32 HF paper upvotes and about 60 GitHub stars.

Released
November 2025
Kind
Image generation and editing
Level
Everyday
Scored
Graded by a model
Answers
Open-ended
Tasks
All public
Scores refreshed
November 12th, 2026

In the authors’ words

Recent advances in multi-modal generative models have driven substantial improvements in image editing. However, current generative models still struggle with handling diverse and complex image editing tasks that require implicit reasoning, underscoring the need for a comprehensive benchmark to systematically assess their performance across various reasoning scenarios. Existing benchmarks primarily focus on single-object attribute transformation in realistic scenarios, which, while effective, encounter two key challenges: (1) they largely overlook multi-object interactions as well as game-world scenarios that involve human-defined rules, which are common in real-life applications; (2) they only rely on textual references to evaluate the generated images, potentially leading to systematic misjudgments, especially in complex reasoning scenarios. To this end, this work proposes UniREditBench, a unified benchmark for reasoning-based image editing evaluation. It comprises 2,700 meticulously curated samples, covering both real- and game-world scenarios across 8 primary dimensions and 18 sub-dimensions. To improve evaluation reliability, we introduce multimodal dual-reference evaluation, providing both textual and ground-truth image references for each sample assessment. Furthermore, we design an automated multi-scenario data synthesis pipeline and construct UniREdit-Data-100K, a large-scale synthetic dataset with high-quality chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning annotations. We fine-tune Bagel on this dataset and develop UniREdit-Bagel, demonstrating substantial improvements in both in-domain and out-of-distribution settings. Through thorough benchmarking of both open-source and closed-source image editing models, we reveal their strengths and weaknesses across various aspects.

Abstract of UniREditBench: A Unified Reasoning-based Image Editing Benchmark (arXiv:2511.01295, CC0)
15
Entries on its own leaderboard, 4 models we track

UniREdit-Bagel tops the leaderboard with 78.2%

Best score per entry from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on November 12th, 2026. Where a model ran with several settings or harnesses, we keep its best. Names in gray aren't in our model list: fine-tunes, agent systems, products and older models. They don't count toward leaders. The best model we track is Seedream 4.0, at 57%.

  1. 1 UniREdit-Bagel 78.2%
  2. 2 GPT-4o (snapshot unspecified) 73.4%
  3. 3 Nano Banana 68.3%
  4. 4 Wan2.5 61.4%
  5. 5 Seedream 4.0 57%
  6. 6 Qwen-Image-Edit 56.5%
  7. 7 UniWorld-V2 54.9%
  8. 8 DreamOmni2 52.8%
  9. 9 Bagel-Think 51%
  10. 10 Step1X-Edit 50.1%
  11. 11 Lumina-DiMOO 48.5%
  12. 12 BAGEL 48%
  13. 13 FLUX-Kontext-Pro 45.8%
  14. 14 Omnigen2 43.4%
  15. 15 MagicBrush 40.8%

Source: Official UniREditBench leaderboard

#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
1 UniREdit-Bagel 78.2% Official leaderboard
2 GPT-4o (snapshot unspecified) 73.4% Official leaderboard
3 Nano Banana 68.3% Official leaderboard
4 Wan2.5 61.4% Official leaderboard
5 Seedream 4.0 57% Official leaderboard
6 Qwen-Image-Edit 56.5% Official leaderboard
7 UniWorld-V2 54.9% Official leaderboard
8 DreamOmni2 52.8% Official leaderboard
9 Bagel-Think 51% Official leaderboard
10 Step1X-Edit 50.1% Official leaderboard
11 Lumina-DiMOO 48.5% Official leaderboard
12 BAGEL 48% Official leaderboard
13 FLUX-Kontext-Pro 45.8% Official leaderboard
14 Omnigen2 43.4% Official leaderboard
15 MagicBrush 40.8% Official leaderboard

Scores over time

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

No dated values yet.

No lab model card reports it yet

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

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%