VLA-Arena
VLAs fine-tuned on level-0 tabletop tasks, tested on 170 tasks in 11 suites at harder unseen levels L1/L2. Success rate.
L0 (the fine-tuning level and page default) median 0.73. L2 best 0.56 and median 0.14, so compare on L1/L2. Benchmark team fine-tuned most entries. Five came from outside users.
In the authors’ words
While Vision-Language-Action models (VLAs) are rapidly advancing toward generalist robot policies, quantitatively characterizing their capability boundaries and failure modes remains challenging. To address this, we introduce VLA-Arena, a comprehensive benchmark. It features a novel structured task design framework to quantify difficulty across three orthogonal axes: (1) Task Structure, (2) Language Command, and (3) Visual Observation. This allows us to systematically design tasks with fine-grained difficulty levels, enabling a precise measurement of model capability frontiers. For task structure, VLA-Arena comprises 11 task suites organized into four dimensions: Safety, Distractor, Extrapolation, and Long Horizon, totaling 170 tasks. Each suite spans three difficulty levels (L0-L2), with fine-tuning restricted to L0 to rigorously assess generalization. Orthogonal to this, language (W0-W4) and visual (V0-V4) perturbations can be applied to any task as diagnostic probes to distinguish robust grounding from superficial pattern matching. Our extensive evaluation of state-of-the-art VLAs reveals critical limitations: memorization over generalization, superficial visual perception, and a neglect of safety constraints. Additionally, model rank reversals across L0-L2 validate that each level provides non-redundant insights. To foster research addressing these model limitations and ensure reproducibility, we provide the complete VLA-Arena framework, including an end-to-end toolchain from task definition to automated evaluation and the VLA-Arena-S/M/L datasets for fine-tuning. Our benchmark, datasets, models, and leaderboard are publicly available at https://vla-arena.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
- Agent task Many steps in a terminal, browser, desktop, app, game or robot.
Paimon tops the leaderboard with 73.1%
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 best model we track is MolmoAct 2, at 72.1%.
The newest model with a score here came out in May 2026, 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
- 73.1 Paimon
- 72.1
MolmoAct 2
- 68.1 StellaVLA
- 66.1 ACoT-VLA
- 62.3 DM0.5
- 54.5 LingBot-VLA 2.0
- 52.5
GR00T N1.7
- 51.2 X-Policy
- 50.9 LingBot-VLA
- 49.0 LangForce
- 44.6 π0
- 44.4 π0-FAST
- 44.3 π0.5
- 41.1 Evo-Depth
- 39.9
OpenVLA-OFT
- 39.3
OpenVLA
- 38.9 Motus
- 38.7 UniVLA
- 38.2 Qwen3-VL-Fast
- 37.4 Qwen3-VL-GR00T
- 37.0 Qwen2.5-VL-GR00T
- 34.1 Qwen3-VL-PI
- 33.4 Qwen3-VL-OFT
- 32.2 Qwen2.5-VL-PI
- 29.9 Qwen2.5-VL-OFT
- 27.8
GR00T N1.6
- 23.7 DreamZero
- 16.3 SmolVLA
- 1 Paimon 73.1%
- 2
MolmoAct 2 72.1%
- 3 StellaVLA 68.1%
- 4 ACoT-VLA 66.1%
- 5 DM0.5 62.3%
- 6 LingBot-VLA 2.0 54.5%
- 7
GR00T N1.7 52.5%
- 8 X-Policy 51.2%
- 9 LingBot-VLA 50.9%
- 10 LangForce 49%
- 11 π0 full fine-tune 44.6%
- 12 π0-FAST full fine-tune 44.4%
- 13 π0.5 full fine-tune 44.3%
- 14 Evo-Depth 41.1%
- 15
OpenVLA-OFT 39.9%
- 16
OpenVLA 39.3%
- 17 Motus 38.9%
- 18 UniVLA 38.7%
- 19 Qwen3-VL-Fast 38.2%
- 20 Qwen3-VL-GR00T 37.4%
- 21 Qwen2.5-VL-GR00T 37%
- 22 Qwen3-VL-PI 34.1%
- 23 Qwen3-VL-OFT 33.4%
- 24 Qwen2.5-VL-PI 32.2%
- 25 Qwen2.5-VL-OFT 29.9%
- 26
GR00T N1.6 27.8%
- 27 DreamZero 23.7%
- 28 SmolVLA 16.3%
| # | Entry | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Paimon | 73.1% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 2 | | 72.1% | May 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 3 | StellaVLA | 68.1% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 4 | ACoT-VLA | 66.1% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 5 | DM0.5 | 62.3% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 6 | LingBot-VLA 2.0 | 54.5% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 7 | | 52.5% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 8 | X-Policy | 51.2% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 9 | LingBot-VLA | 50.9% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 10 | LangForce | 49% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 11 | π0 | 44.6% | full fine-tune | Oct 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 12 | π0-FAST | 44.4% | full fine-tune | Jan 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 13 | π0.5 | 44.3% | full fine-tune | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 14 | Evo-Depth | 41.1% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 15 | | 39.9% | Feb 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 16 | | 39.3% | Jun 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 17 | Motus | 38.9% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 18 | UniVLA | 38.7% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 19 | Qwen3-VL-Fast | 38.2% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 20 | Qwen3-VL-GR00T | 37.4% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 21 | Qwen2.5-VL-GR00T | 37% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 22 | Qwen3-VL-PI | 34.1% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 23 | Qwen3-VL-OFT | 33.4% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 24 | Qwen2.5-VL-PI | 32.2% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 25 | Qwen2.5-VL-OFT | 29.9% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 26 | | 27.8% | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 27 | DreamZero | 23.7% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 28 | SmolVLA | 16.3% | Official leaderboard |
3 models have held number one since its release in Sep 2025
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.
Scores over time
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
No lab model card reports it yet
We read the headline results of 479 launch posts from 51 labs, and none of them list this benchmark.
More in Robotics
- ERQA In use 400 multiple-choice visual questions from robot and egocentric footage on spatial, trajectory, action and state reasoning. Accuracy.
Gemini Robotics ER 2 78.5%
- RoboLab In use Zero-shot DROID Franka policies in Isaac Lab on 120 tabletop tasks at three instruction levels, 10 episodes each. Success rate.
GR00T N1.7 8.58%
- Human proximity (Google DeepMind robotics) In use Models judge from robot camera views whether a human is within 1 meter, a spatial awareness check for safe robot behavior. Scored by accuracy.
Gemini Robotics ER 2 93%
- Moment finding (Google DeepMind) In use Models find the moment in a robot video when an event happens. Scored by accuracy and mean absolute time distance in seconds.
Gemini Robotics ER 2 91.3%
- Progress classification (Google DeepMind) In use Models assign each frame of a robot video to one of five task-progress bands from 0 to 100 percent. Scored by accuracy.
Gemini Robotics ER 2 57.4%
- LIBERO Fading Simulated Franka tabletop tasks in four 10-task suites. Policies fine-tuned on 50 demos per task. Success rate over ~50 trials.
MolmoAct 2 97.2%