VideoMME v2 (with subtitles)
Models answer multiple choice questions about videos with subtitles or audio added. Related questions are scored as groups to penalize guessing.
This is the with-subtitles setting, which scores higher for reasoning models than the frames-only setting.
In the authors’ words
With the rapid advancement of video understanding, existing benchmarks are becoming increasingly saturated, exposing a critical discrepancy between inflated leaderboard scores and real-world model capabilities. To address this widening gap, we introduce Video-MME-v2, a comprehensive benchmark designed to rigorously evaluate the robustness and faithfulness of video understanding. To systematically evaluate model capabilities, we design a progressive tri-level hierarchy that incrementally increases the complexity of video comprehension, ranging from multi-point visual information aggregation, to temporal dynamics modeling, and ultimately to complex multimodal reasoning. Besides, in contrast to conventional per-question accuracy, we propose a group-based non-linear evaluation strategy that enforces both consistency across related queries and coherence in multi-step reasoning. It penalizes fragmented or guess-based correctness and assigns credit only to answers supported by valid reasoning. To guarantee data quality, Video-MME-v2 is constructed through a rigorously controlled human annotation pipeline, involving 12 annotators and 50 independent reviewers. Backed by 3,300 human-hours and up to 5 rounds of quality assurance, Video-MME-v2 aims to serve as one of the most authoritative video benchmarks. Extensive experiments reveal a substantial gap between current best model Gemini-3-Pro and human experts, and uncover a clear hierarchical bottleneck where errors in visual information aggregation and temporal modeling propagate to limit high-level reasoning. We further find that thinking-based reasoning is highly dependent on textual cues, improving performance with subtitles but sometimes degrading it in purely visual settings. By exposing these limitations, Video-MME-v2 establishes a demanding new testbed for the development of next-generation video MLLMs.
- 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
- Multiple choice
Qwen 3.8 Max leads with 68.3%
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
Qwen 3.8 Max 68.3%
- 2
Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash 65%
- 3
Seed2.0 Lite (0428) 64.9%
- 4
Muse Spark Open 61.5%
- 5
Keye-VL-2.0-30B-A3B 42.4%
- 6
Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 32.9%
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 68.3% | Aug 2026 | Model card | |
| 2 | | 65% | Sep 2026 | Model card | |
| 3 | | 64.9% | Apr 2026 | Model card | |
| 4 | | 61.5% | Oct 2026 | Model card | |
| 5 | | 42.4% | May 2026 | Model card | |
| 6 | | 32.9% | Oct 2026 | Model card |
The benchmark's own leaderboard has 37 entries, 31 of them models we track. We plot every source in the charts below.
Scores at each effort level
Models the leaderboard ran at two or more effort levels. We don’t have enough cost data here to say what the extra effort costs.
| Model | Effort | Harness | Score | Cost per task | Output tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | 1 fps | 49.4% | |||
| | 1 fps | 43.3% | |||
| | 1 fps | 42.5% | |||
| Kimi K2.5 | 512 frames | 40.7% | |||
| | thinking, 512 frames | 39.1% | |||
| MiMo-V2-Omni | 1 fps | 38.6% | |||
| GPT-5 | 50 frames | 37% | |||
| Kimi K2.5 | 64 frames | 36.1% | |||
| | thinking, 512 frames | 31.4% | |||
| | thinking, 64 frames | 30.6% | |||
| | thinking, 64 frames | 29.6% | |||
| | 60 frames | 28.2% | |||
| | thinking, 512 frames | 28.1% | |||
| | 512 frames | 27.4% | |||
| | thinking, 64 frames | 26.7% | |||
| | thinking, 64 frames | 26.3% | |||
| | thinking, 512 frames | 26.2% | |||
| | thinking, 64 frames | 25.8% | |||
| | 64 frames | 25.6% | |||
| | thinking, 512 frames | 25.1% | |||
| | non-thinking, 64 frames | 25% | |||
| | non-thinking, 64 frames | 24.5% | |||
| | non-thinking, 64 frames | 23.9% | |||
| | thinking, 512 frames | 23.9% | |||
| | thinking, 64 frames | 23.2% | |||
| | non-thinking, 64 frames | 23.1% | |||
| | non-thinking, 64 frames | 22.1% | |||
| GLM-4.5V | thinking, 64 frames | 21.8% | |||
| | non-thinking, 64 frames | 20.9% | |||
| | thinking, 64 frames | 20.7% | |||
| | non-thinking, 64 frames | 19.9% | |||
| | thinking, 64 frames | 19.5% | |||
| MiMo-VL-7B-RL-2508 | 64 frames | 19.4% | |||
| | non-thinking, 64 frames | 18.3% | |||
| LLaVA-Video-72B-Qwen2 | 64 frames | 17.2% | |||
| | non-thinking, 64 frames | 17.1% | |||
| | non-thinking, 64 frames | 16.6% | |||
| | non-thinking, 64 frames | 16.4% | |||
| | non-thinking, 64 frames | 15.4% | |||
| MiMo-VL-7B-SFT-2508 | 64 frames | 14.7% | |||
| | non-thinking, 64 frames | 14.4% | |||
| VideoLLAMA3-7B | 64 frames | 14.2% | |||
| | non-thinking, 64 frames | 14.2% | |||
| | 64 frames | 14.1% | |||
| GLM-4.1V-9B-Thinking | thinking, 64 frames | 14% | |||
| VITA-1.5 | 16 frames | 11.3% | |||
| LLaVA-Video-7B-Qwen2 | 64 frames | 9.70% |
Number one over time
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.
3 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.
| Date | Launch post | Score | As the post writes it |
|---|---|---|---|
| 15 Oct 2026 | 61.5 | VideoMMEv2 (subtitle setting not stated) | |
| 15 Oct 2026 | 32.9 | Video-MME v2 (subtitle setting not stated) | |
| 18 Sep 2026 | 65 | Video-MME-v2 Audio-Visual Reasoning (static, audio input; Qwen Code 71.3) | |
| 3 Aug 2026 | 68.3 | VideoMME v2 (w/ Sub.) | |
| 25 May 2026 | 42.4 | Best of Video-MME-v2 ACC 64 frames 35.3 / 512 frames 42.4 | |
| 28 Apr 2026 | 64.9 | VideoMMEv2 (subtitle setting not stated) |
3 system cards report it, from 3 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15 Oct 2026 | | 32.9 | Video-MME-v2, evaluated without subtitles (Table 10 and 3.8 text) | Capabilities |
| 22 Sep 2026 | | 65 | Video-MME-v2, Static, audio-visual input, subtitle use not stated (Tables 5 and 7). Qwen Code agentic 71.3 | Capabilities |
| 9 Jun 2026 | | 42.4 | Video-MME-v2 ACC, 512 frames, 35.3 at 64 frames. Non-Lin score 24.2 / 18.5. Subtitle use not stated (Table 2) | Capabilities |
Versions
We switch the top row to each new version when it comes out. Open it for one row per version. An old version stays in play while people still test it, so whoever first takes it past 85% gets credit for closing it out.
More in Audio and video
- Video-MMMU In use 300 expert-level lecture videos with questions testing perception, comprehension and adaptation of knowledge. Accuracy.
Qwen 3.8 Max 88.7%
- LVBench In use Hours-long video understanding with multiple-choice questions on reasoning, grounding and summarization.
Gemini 4 Argon 91.7%
- MMVU In use 3,000 expert-annotated questions on videos across 27 disciplines. Multiple-choice and open-ended accuracy.
Qwen 3.8 Max 82.4%
- MLVU In use Multi-task long video understanding (minutes to hours) with multiple-choice and generation tasks. Accuracy.
Qwen 3.8 Max 90.8%
- VoiceBench In use Spoken instructions with speaker, environment and content variation. Voice assistant responses scored by GPT judge or rules.
Qwen3.5-Omni-Plus 93.1%
- TVBench In use Models answer multiple-choice questions on 10 temporal video tasks, such as action counting and ordering, that static frames cannot solve. Scored by accuracy.
Qwen 3.8 Max 81.9%