Archived Benchmark

Since performance on this benchmark has saturated, we no longer run this benchmark on new model releases. Previous results are preserved here for posterity.

Academic

MMMU Pro

Updated 9/1/2026

Multimodal Multi-task Benchmark

As of September 1, 2026, Claude Fable 5.1 ranks first on MMMU Pro with 90.64%, followed by Claude Opus 5 (89.88%) and Claude Fable 5 (89.31%).

MMMU ProMultimodal multi-subject reasoning test
ACCURACY

MMMU Pro leaderboard

Rank Model Accuracy Cost In / Out Latency
1 Claude Fable 5.1 90.64% $10 / $50 37.47s
2 Claude Opus 5 89.88% $5 / $25 30.03s
3 Claude Fable 5 89.31% $10 / $50 61.44s
4 Gemini 3.8 Flash 89.08% $1.5 / $7.5 12.03s
5 Gemini 3.7 Flash 88.96% $1.5 / $7.5 6.28s
6 GPT-5.6 Sol 88.84% $4 / $20 26.20s
7 Gemini 3.6 Flash 88.38% $1.5 / $7.5 11.31s
8 Gemini 3.5 Flash 88.27% $1.5 / $9 12.23s
9 GPT 5.5 88.27% $5 / $30 54.15s
10 Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview (02/26) 88.21% $2 / $12 76.99s
11 Kimi K3 88.15% $3 / $15 106.52s
12 Qwen 3.8 Max 88.03% $2 / $6 43.85s
13 Gemini 3 Flash (12/25) 87.63% $0.5 / $3 27.86s
14 Gemini 3 Pro (11/25) 87.51% $2 / $12 48.10s
15 GPT 5.4 (xhigh) 87.51% $2.5 / $15 65.56s
16 Muse Spark 87.40% N/A 48.27s
17 GPT 5.2 86.67% $1.75 / $14 96.32s
18 Muse Spark 1.1 86.59% $1.25 / $4.25 31.71s
19 Claude Opus 4.8 86.59% $5 / $25 49.04s
20 GPT-5.6 Terra 86.47% $2 / $12 13.03s
21 Kimi K2.6 86.30% $0.95 / $4 4m02s
22 Muse Spark 1.2 86.13% $1.25 / $4.25 73.84s
23 GLM 5.3 Flash 86.01% $0.075 / $0.25 28.22s
24 Claude Opus 4.7 85.55% $5 / $25 70.80s
25 GPT-5.6 Luna 85.03% $0.2 / $1.2 35.10s
26 Kimi K2.5 84.33% $0.6 / $3 110.01s
27 Qwen 3.6 Plus 84.16% $0.5 / $3 111.94s
28 Qwen 3.8 27B 83.93% $0.5 / $3 43.48s
29 Claude Opus 4.6 (Thinking) 83.87% $5 / $25 119.00s
30 Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite 83.58% $0.3 / $2.5 7.80s
31 Claude Sonnet 4.6 83.58% $3 / $15 2m12s
32 Grok 4.20 (Reasoning) 83.47% $2 / $6 44.46s
33 GPT 5.1 83.18% $1.25 / $10 75.31s
34 Grok 4.3 83.06% $1.25 / $2.5 2m31s
35 Claude Sonnet 5 83.01% $2 / $10 18.82s
36 Claude Opus 4.5 (Thinking) 82.95% $5 / $25 75.28s
37 Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Preview 82.49% $0.25 / $1.5 12.45s
38 Qwen 3.5 Flash 81.91% $0.1 / $0.4 45.84s
39 GPT 5 81.50% $1.25 / $10 72.11s
40 Gemini 2.5 Pro Exp 81.34% $1.25 / $10 24.14s
41 MiniMax-M3 81.16% $0.6 / $2.4 68.35s
42 Claude Opus 4.5 (Nonthinking) 81.10% $5 / $25 19.56s
43 Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (9/25) (Thinking) 80.75% $0.3 / $2.5 27.87s
44 o3 80.42% $2 / $8 39.27s
45 MiMo V2.5 80.00% $0.14 / $0.28 42.47s
46 o4 Mini 79.67% $1.1 / $4.4 19.72s
47 Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (9/25) (Nonthinking) 79.48% $0.3 / $2.5 25.64s
48 Claude Sonnet 4.5 (Thinking) 79.31% $3 / $15 56.36s
49 GPT 5.4 Mini 79.25% $0.75 / $4.5 50.81s
50 GPT 5 Mini 78.91% $0.25 / $2 26.70s
51 Inkling 78.50% $1 / $4.05 2m04s
52 Claude Opus 4.1 (Thinking) 77.51% $15 / $75 2.45s
53 o1 77.41% $15 / $60 26.41s
54 Grok 4 76.27% $3 / $15 102.83s
55 Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite (9/25) (Thinking) 75.43% $0.1 / $0.4 25.73s
56 Claude 3.7 Sonnet (Thinking) 75.10% $3 / $15 69.58s
57 Claude Sonnet 4 (Thinking) 74.93% $3 / $15 48.85s
58 Claude Opus 4.1 (Nonthinking) 73.72% $15 / $75 46.28s
59 GPT 5.4 Nano 73.58% $0.2 / $1.25 21.91s
60 Claude Opus 4 (Nonthinking) 73.31% $15 / $75 14.02s
61 Grok 4 Fast (Reasoning) 72.78% $0.2 / $0.5 19.48s
62 Grok 4.1 Fast (Reasoning) 72.66% $0.2 / $0.5 96.35s
63 Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite (9/25) (Nonthinking) 72.54% $0.1 / $0.4 20.07s
64 Claude Sonnet 4 (Nonthinking) 72.39% $3 / $15 10.82s
65 GPT 4.1 72.39% $2 / $8 12.00s
66 Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview 4/17 (Thinking) 71.92% $0.3 / $2.5 7m52s
67 Llama 4 Maverick 71.69% $0.22 / $0.88 7.91s
68 Claude 3.7 Sonnet (Nonthinking) 71.52% $3 / $15 8.32s
69 GPT 5 Nano 70.94% $0.05 / $0.4 30.78s
70 GPT 4.1 Mini 70.54% $0.4 / $1.6 8.22s
71 Gemini 2.0 Flash (001) 69.79% $0.1 / $0.4 45.20s
72 Claude 3.5 Sonnet Latest 68.80% $3 / $15 46.01s
73 Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview 4/17 (Nonthinking) 68.00% $0.3 / $2.5 37.10s
74 Mistral Large 3 66.19% $0.5 / $1.5 13.55s
75 Gemini 1.5 Pro (002) 65.51% $1.25 / $5 43.74s
76 Magistral Small 1.2 (09/2025) 65.20% $0.5 / $1.5 19.09s
77 Magistral Medium 1.2 (09/2025) 64.57% $2 / $5 42.14s
78 GPT 4o (2024-08-06) 64.01% $2.5 / $10 47.52s
79 Grok 4.1 Fast Non-Reasoning 63.70% $0.2 / $0.5 51.43s
80 Grok 4 Fast (Non-Reasoning) 63.41% $0.2 / $0.5 7.21s
81 Mistral Medium 3.1 (05/2025) 62.97% $0.4 / $2 12.56s
82 GPT 4o (2024-11-20) 62.16% $2.5 / $10 45.87s
83 Grok 4.5 61.79% $2 / $6 11m55s
84 Mistral Small 3.1 (03/2025) 60.08% $0.075 / $0.3 13.40s
85 Llama 4 Scout 58.75% $0.18 / $0.59 10.51s
86 Grok 2 Vision 57.25% $2 / $10 18.36s
87 Gemini 1.5 Flash (002) 57.19% $0.075 / $0.3 41.31s
88 GPT 4o Mini 56.56% $0.15 / $0.6 45.02s
89 GPT 4.1 Nano 55.05% $0.1 / $0.4 7.25s
90 Llama 3.2 Vision (90B) 48.06% $1.2 / $1.2 56.33s
91 Claude Haiku 4.5 (Thinking) 46.07% $1 / $5 40.48s
92 Llama 3.2 Vision (11B) 38.82% $0.18 / $0.18 38.07s
93 Qwen 3.5 Plus 22.77% $0.4 / $2.4 2m15s

Key Takeaways

  • Claude Opus 5 leads at 89.88%. Eight models span a 1.73 percentage point range, and five of those are separated by just 0.23 percentage points, compression that indicates saturation in the top tier.
  • Models are now around the performance of the best human experts (88.6%), with the top model slightly above that mark. Progress on this benchmark seems to be approaching an asymptotic limit.
  • Most of the top models are reasoning models. Generally, the reasoning models take noticeably longer than their non-reasoning counterparts.

Results

According to the original MMMU research, human expert performance ranges from 76.2% for the worst-performing experts to 88.6% for the best-performing experts. Our evaluation shows that the leading AI models have now slightly surpassed the upper bound of reported human expert performance.


Dataset and Context

The Multimodal Multi-task Benchmark (MMMU) follows a similar methodology to its predecessor, MMLU, but the multiple-choice questions asked include both text and images. MMMU Pro encompasses over 1,000 high-quality tasks spanning 30 subjects in 6 major disciplines:

  • Arts & Design
  • Business
  • Science
  • Health & Medicine
  • Humanities & Social Sciences
  • Tech & Engineering

We based this benchmark on the standard 4-option multiple-choice format containing approximately 1,700 questions from the official Hugging Face dataset. The benchmark focuses specifically on how well models can process and reason about problems where images are interleaved with text, requiring sophisticated visual understanding and cross-modal reasoning capabilities.

MMMU Pro is particularly valuable because it tests the models’ abilities to solve graduate-level questions where visual information is critical to finding the correct answer.


Methodology

We adhered closely to the official MMMU Pro evaluation protocol with the following implementation details:

  1. Prompt Structure: We used the chain-of-thought prompt from the original MMMU repository. Each question-answer set followed this format:
Which of the following best explains the overall trend shown in the <image>?
A. Migrations to areas of Central Asia for resettlement
B. The spread of pathogens across the Silk Road
C. Invasions by Mongol tribes
D. Large-scale famine due to crop failures
Answer the preceding multiple choice question. The last line of your response should be of the following format: 'Answer: $LETTER' (without quotes) where LETTER is one of options. Think step by step before answering.
  1. Image Processing: All <image> tags were replaced with actual image bytes during model inference, replicating the original methodology exactly.

  2. Standardization: We established a consistent baseline by using a default configuration of 8192 maximum output tokens for all models to ensure that outputs were not truncated. All models were ran with a temperature of 0.

  3. Parsing Adaptation: We modified the answer extraction regex to handle markdown output from some models, ensuring reliable parsing across all responses.

  4. Statistical Validity: This was a pass@1 evaluation (one attempt per question), with the large dataset size (1,700 questions). We found a standard deviation approximately 1% (calculated using the methodology from Adding Error Bars to Evals: A Statistical Approach to Language Model Evaluations)

  5. Thinking Models Configuration: For models with “thinking” capabilities (Claude 3.7 Sonnet Thinking, o1, etc.), we set the maximum output token limit to 16,384 to accommodate extended reasoning.