multimodal benchmark
MVBench is a multimodal video understanding benchmark covering 20 video tasks that require temporal understanding beyond single-frame analysis.
Updated Sep 5, 2026
Higher score ranks better on this benchmark.
Rank | Model | Score | Percentile | Participants | Evidence | Evaluated |
|---|
| Rank01 | ModelZA | Score77.80% | Percentile100.00% | Participants18 | EvidenceC | Evaluated |
| Rank02 | ModelAC | Score76.60% | Percentile94.12% | Participants18 | EvidenceC | Evaluated |
| Rank03 | ModelAC | Score75.50% | Percentile88.24% | Participants18 | EvidenceC | Evaluated |
| Rank04 | ModelAC | Score74.80% | Percentile82.35% | Participants18 | EvidenceC | Evaluated |
| Rank05 | ModelAC | Score74.60% | Percentile76.47% | Participants18 | EvidenceC | Evaluated |
| Rank06 | ModelAC | Score74.60% | Percentile70.59% | Participants18 | EvidenceC | Evaluated |
| Rank07 | ModelAC | Score73.60% | Percentile64.71% | Participants18 | EvidenceC | Evaluated |
| Rank08 | ModelAC | Score73.20% | Percentile58.82% | Participants18 | EvidenceC | Evaluated |
| Rank09 | ModelAC | Score72.80% | Percentile52.94% | Participants18 | EvidenceC | Evaluated |
| Rank10 | ModelAC | Score72.30% | Percentile47.06% | Participants18 | EvidenceC | Evaluated |
| Rank11 | ModelAC | Score72.00% | Percentile41.18% | Participants18 | EvidenceC | Evaluated |
| Rank12 | ModelAC | Score70.40% | Percentile35.29% | Participants18 | EvidenceC | Evaluated |
| Rank13 | ModelAC | Score70.30% | Percentile29.41% | Participants18 | EvidenceC | Evaluated |
| Rank14 | ModelAC | Score69.60% | Percentile23.53% | Participants18 | EvidenceC | Evaluated |
| Rank15 | ModelAC | Score69.30% | Percentile17.65% | Participants18 | EvidenceC | Evaluated |
| Rank16 | ModelAC | Score69.00% | Percentile11.76% | Participants18 | EvidenceC | Evaluated |
| Rank17 | ModelAC | Score68.90% | Percentile5.88% | Participants18 | EvidenceC | Evaluated |
| Rank18 | ModelAC | Score68.70% | Percentile0.00% | Participants18 | EvidenceC | Evaluated |
The leading models and scores on this benchmark.
A closer view of the leading scores on this benchmark.
The first five results on this benchmark, with official price and output speed added where the model identity can be matched.
What MVBench measures and how its scores work.
MVBench is a benchmark for multimodal video understanding with tasks spanning perception and cognition, including action recognition, temporal reasoning, spatial reasoning, object interaction, scene transition, and counterfactual inference.
MVBench reports a Score in ratio units across its video tasks.
Scores are shown in ratio. This benchmark is not independently verified and has an evidence level of B.
LLM Stats. Benchmark scores retain their original unit. Overall score eligibility is shown separately.
Common questions about MVBench.
GLM-5.3-Flash is currently ranked first with 77.80%.
The current leaders are GLM-5.3-Flash (77.80%), Qwen3.5-122B-A10B (76.60%), and Qwen3.6-27B (75.50%).
GLM-5.3-Flash has the lowest matched official input price at $0.08 input / $0.25 output per 1M tokens.
The fastest matched records are GLM-5.3-Flash (74.28 tok/s via FriendliAI) and Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking (8.77 tok/s via DeepInfra).
No. This benchmark measures one defined capability or task. The overall LLMBoard score uses a separate aggregation across eligible benchmark evidence.
MVBench reports a Score in ratio units across its video tasks.
Yes. Higher values rank better for this benchmark.
18 model results are currently shown.
No. This benchmark is shown for reference but does not contribute to the overall score.
Ranking basisThis mvbench AI model leaderboard uses descending score in the benchmark original unit. The leaderboard ranking keeps matched price and speed data separate from benchmark evidence.
Selection summary
GLM-5.3-Flash currently leads MVBench with 77.80%. It is the top model on this specific benchmark, while the best LLM for the broader task should also be checked against other benchmarks, price, and runtime.
Use this leaderboard with the supporting benchmark results and coverage details above. A leaderboard position summarizes the selected ranking signal; it does not replace workload-specific testing.