Benchmark Almanac

VisualPuzzles

o4-mini 57% leads since Apr 2025 Fading

Models solve visual puzzles that need algorithmic, analogical, deductive, inductive and spatial reasoning but little domain knowledge. Scored by accuracy.

Many puzzles come from translated Chinese civil service exam questions.

In the authors’ words

Current multimodal benchmarks often conflate reasoning with domain-specific knowledge, making it difficult to isolate and evaluate general reasoning abilities in non-expert settings. To address this, we introduce VisualPuzzles, a benchmark that targets visual reasoning while deliberately minimizing reliance on specialized knowledge. VisualPuzzles consists of diverse questions spanning five categories: algorithmic, analogical, deductive, inductive, and spatial reasoning. One major source of our questions is manually translated logical reasoning questions from the Chinese Civil Service Examination. Experiments show that VisualPuzzles requires significantly less intensive domain-specific knowledge and more complex reasoning compared to benchmarks like MMMU, enabling us to better evaluate genuine multimodal reasoning. Evaluations show that state-of-the-art multimodal large language models consistently lag behind human performance on VisualPuzzles, and that strong performance on knowledge-intensive benchmarks does not necessarily translate to success on reasoning-focused, knowledge-light tasks. Additionally, reasoning enhancements such as scaling up inference compute (with "thinking" modes) yield inconsistent gains across models and task types, and we observe no clear correlation between model size and performance. We also found that models exhibit different reasoning and answering patterns on VisualPuzzles compared to benchmarks with heavier emphasis on knowledge. VisualPuzzles offers a clearer lens through which to evaluate reasoning capabilities beyond factual recall and domain knowledge.

Abstract of VisualPuzzles: Decoupling Multimodal Reasoning Evaluation from Domain Knowledge (arXiv:2504.10342, CC0)
Made by Carnegie Mellon University (NeuLab) Released Apr 2025 Spatial reasoning and counting All tasks public Last in a launch post Feb 2026 , dropped before it saturated Last model added Feb 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
Multiple choice
34
Entries on its own leaderboard, 29 models we track
2
Launch posts list it, from 1 lab
2
System cards report it, from 2 labs

o4-mini leads with 57% among models released by Nov 2025

Best score per entry from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on 2 Nov 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 newest model with a score here came out in Nov 2025, and nobody has tested a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:

  1. 1 o4-mini 57%
  2. 2 o3 54%
  3. 3 Gemini 3 Pro 52.7%
  4. 4 o1 51.8%
  5. 5 Gemini 2.5 Pro Jun 2025 49.5%
  6. 6 Claude 3.7 Sonnet 48.3%
  7. 7 Claude Sonnet 4 thinking 47.3%
  8. 8 Gemini 1.5 Pro Sep 2024 45%
  9. 9 Gemini 2.0 Flash Feb 2025 44.9%
  10. 10 Gemini 2.5 Flash Sep 2025, thinking 44.6%
  11. 11 Claude 3.5 Sonnet 42.4%
  12. 12 Qwen2.5-VL-72B 42.2%
  13. 13 GPT-4o Aug 2024 41.3%
  14. 14 QVQ-72B-Preview 37.8%
  15. 15 Qwen2-VL-72B-Instruct 34.9%
  16. 16 Llama 3.2 90B 34.1%
  17. 17 Qwen2.5-VL-7B 33.7%
  18. 18 Qwen2-VL-72B 32.4%
  19. 19 Qwen2-VL-2B-Instruct 31.3%
  20. 20 Pangea-7B 31.2%
  21. 21 Qwen2.5-VL-3B 31.2%
  22. 22 LLaVA-OneVision 72B 30.8%
  23. 23 Qwen2-VL-7B-Instruct 30.2%
  24. 24 LLaVA-v1.6-34B 29.8%
  25. 25 LLaVA-OneVision 7B 29.4%
  26. 26 Llama 3.2 11B 29.4%
  27. 27 Cambrian-1-8B 28.9%
  28. 28 LLaVA-v1.5-13B 27.6%
  29. 29 LLaVA-1.6-7B 27.4%
  30. 30 Cambrian-1-13B 27.4%
  31. 31 LLaVA-OneVision 0.5B 27.2%
  32. 32 LLaVA-1.5-7B 26.9%
  33. 33 Qwen-VL 26.6%
  34. 34 llava-v1.6-vicuna-13b 25.5%
#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
1 o4-mini 57% Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
2 o3 54% Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
3 Gemini 3 Pro 52.7% Nov 2025 Official leaderboard
4 o1 51.8% Dec 2024 Official leaderboard
5 Gemini 2.5 Pro Jun 2025 49.5% Jun 2025 Official leaderboard
6 Claude 3.7 Sonnet 48.3% Feb 2025 Official leaderboard
7 Claude Sonnet 4 47.3% thinking May 2025 Official leaderboard
8 Gemini 1.5 Pro Sep 2024 45% Sep 2024 Official leaderboard
9 Gemini 2.0 Flash Feb 2025 44.9% Feb 2025 Official leaderboard
10 Gemini 2.5 Flash Sep 2025 44.6% thinking Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
11 Claude 3.5 Sonnet 42.4% Jun 2024 Official leaderboard
12 Qwen2.5-VL-72B 42.2% Jan 2025 Official leaderboard
13 GPT-4o Aug 2024 41.3% Aug 2024 Official leaderboard
14 QVQ-72B-Preview 37.8% Dec 2024 Official leaderboard
15 Qwen2-VL-72B-Instruct 34.9% Aug 2024 Official leaderboard
16 Llama 3.2 90B 34.1% Sep 2024 Official leaderboard
17 Qwen2.5-VL-7B 33.7% Jan 2025 Official leaderboard
18 Qwen2-VL-72B 32.4% Official leaderboard
19 Qwen2-VL-2B-Instruct 31.3% Aug 2024 Official leaderboard
20 Pangea-7B 31.2% Official leaderboard
21 Qwen2.5-VL-3B 31.2% Jan 2025 Official leaderboard
22 LLaVA-OneVision 72B 30.8% Aug 2024 Official leaderboard
23 Qwen2-VL-7B-Instruct 30.2% Aug 2024 Official leaderboard
24 LLaVA-v1.6-34B 29.8% Jan 2024 Official leaderboard
25 LLaVA-OneVision 7B 29.4% Aug 2024 Official leaderboard
26 Llama 3.2 11B 29.4% Sep 2024 Official leaderboard
27 Cambrian-1-8B 28.9% Jun 2024 Official leaderboard
28 LLaVA-v1.5-13B 27.6% Oct 2023 Official leaderboard
29 LLaVA-1.6-7B 27.4% Official leaderboard
30 Cambrian-1-13B 27.4% Jun 2024 Official leaderboard
31 LLaVA-OneVision 0.5B 27.2% Aug 2024 Official leaderboard
32 LLaVA-1.5-7B 26.9% Official leaderboard
33 Qwen-VL 26.6% Official leaderboard
34 llava-v1.6-vicuna-13b 25.5% Jan 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 Apr 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.

OpenAI Baidu Qwen
Own leaderboard Not tested since Nov 2025
o4-mini 57%
Lab claims Not tested since Feb 2026
ERNIE 5.0 64.8%

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%) ERNIE 5.0 Qwen3-VL-235B-A22B o4-mini o1 Gemini 1.5 Pro LLaVA-v1.6-34B 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2024 2025 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) ERNIE 5.0 Qwen3-VL-235B-A22B

Labs headline it less often now, last in Feb 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.

Baidu
DateLaunch postScoreAs the post writes it
6 Feb 2026 ERNIE 5.0 64.8 VisualPuzzle
11 Nov 2025 ERNIE-4.5-VL-28B-A3B-Thinking 52.5 VisualPuzzle

2 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.

DateDocumentScoreAs the document writes itSection
4 Feb 2026 ERNIE 5.0 technical report 64.8 VisualPuzzle (Table 3) Capabilities
26 Nov 2025 Qwen3-VL-235B-A22B technical report 57.2 VisualPuzzles (Table 2) 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%