| Ecosystem |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Paid |
| Capabilities | 12 decomposed | 5 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Evaluates multimodal models' ability to interpret visual mathematical representations (geometry diagrams, statistical charts, scientific figures) and perform compositional reasoning combining visual perception with mathematical problem-solving. The benchmark uses a curated dataset of 6,141 examples sourced from 28 existing multimodal datasets plus 3 newly created datasets (IQTest, FunctionQA, PaperQA), with questions presented in multiple-choice and free-form generation formats. Scoring uses exact-match accuracy on the testmini subset (1,000 examples) exposed via a public leaderboard.
Unique: Combines visual understanding with mathematical problem-solving across three newly created datasets (IQTest, FunctionQA, PaperQA) plus 28 existing multimodal datasets, totaling 6,141 examples with explicit focus on compositional reasoning where visual perception and mathematical logic must be jointly applied. Unlike single-domain benchmarks, MathVista spans geometry, statistics, and scientific figures, exposing differential model performance across mathematical reasoning types.
vs alternatives: Broader than domain-specific benchmarks (e.g., geometry-only or chart-only) and more rigorous than general vision-language benchmarks because it requires both accurate visual interpretation AND correct mathematical reasoning, not just image captioning or visual QA on non-mathematical content.
Aggregates and curates 6,141 mathematical reasoning examples from 28 existing multimodal datasets and 3 newly created datasets (IQTest, FunctionQA, PaperQA) with standardized question-answer pairs. The curation process involves selecting examples that require compositional visual-mathematical reasoning, extracting or generating questions, and providing auxiliary annotations (OCR text, image captions) for text-only model baselines. Dataset is hosted on Hugging Face and includes a visualization tool for exploring examples by mathematical domain and visual context type.
Unique: Newly created datasets (IQTest, FunctionQA, PaperQA) are purpose-built for compositional visual-mathematical reasoning rather than repurposed from general vision-language tasks. Includes auxiliary annotations (OCR, captions) enabling evaluation of text-only models as baselines, revealing how much visual understanding contributes to performance vs. text-based reasoning alone.
vs alternatives: More comprehensive than single-source mathematical reasoning datasets because it aggregates 28 existing datasets plus 3 new ones, providing broader coverage of visual mathematical domains and reducing bias from any single source's annotation style or problem distribution.
MathVista is released as open-source with dataset available on Hugging Face and code available on GitHub (links provided), enabling researchers to download, analyze, and build upon the benchmark. Open-source release facilitates reproducibility, enables community contributions, and lowers barriers to adoption. Researchers can access raw data, evaluation code, and visualization tools without proprietary restrictions.
Unique: Benchmark is released as open-source with dataset on Hugging Face and code on GitHub, enabling full reproducibility and community access without proprietary restrictions. This open-source approach facilitates adoption and enables researchers to build upon benchmark.
vs alternatives: More accessible than proprietary benchmarks because open-source release enables researchers to download, analyze, and build upon benchmark without licensing restrictions or vendor lock-in.
Aggregates examples from 28 existing multimodal datasets plus 3 newly created datasets (IQTest, FunctionQA, PaperQA) into a unified benchmark with standardized question-answer format and consistent evaluation protocol. This aggregation approach combines diverse sources (existing datasets covering various visual-mathematical domains plus new datasets targeting specific reasoning types) into a single coherent benchmark. Standardization enables fair comparison across models and reduces bias from any single source's annotation style or problem distribution.
Unique: Aggregates 28 existing datasets plus 3 new datasets into unified benchmark with standardized format, combining diverse sources to reduce bias from any single source. This aggregation approach is more comprehensive than single-source benchmarks but introduces complexity in managing source bias and ensuring consistent quality.
vs alternatives: More comprehensive than single-source benchmarks because it combines diverse sources covering multiple visual-mathematical domains, reducing bias from any single dataset's annotation style or problem distribution.
Maintains a public leaderboard (testmini subset, 1,000 examples) tracking multimodal model performance on mathematical reasoning tasks with exact-match accuracy as the primary metric. The leaderboard displays rankings of models (GPT-4V at 49.9%, Gemini Ultra, Bard at ~34.8%, and others) and enables comparison of model capabilities across visual mathematical domains. Leaderboard is updated as new model submissions are evaluated, providing a living benchmark of progress in multimodal mathematical reasoning.
Unique: Leaderboard focuses specifically on mathematical reasoning (not general vision-language tasks) and exposes performance gaps between SOTA models (GPT-4V at 49.9%) and human performance (~60.3%), demonstrating that even best-in-class models fall short by 10.4 percentage points on compositional visual-mathematical reasoning. This gap motivates continued research and provides a clear target for improvement.
vs alternatives: More specialized than general vision-language leaderboards (e.g., MMVP, LLaVA-Bench) because it focuses on mathematical reasoning where visual understanding and mathematical logic must be jointly applied, not just image captioning or visual QA on non-mathematical content.
Provides OCR-extracted text and image captions for each visual example, enabling evaluation of text-only models (e.g., GPT-4 without vision) as baselines on visual mathematical reasoning tasks. This allows researchers to isolate the contribution of visual understanding vs. text-based reasoning by comparing text-only model performance (using OCR + captions) against multimodal model performance (using images). The auxiliary annotations reveal whether models can solve mathematical problems from text descriptions alone or require direct visual interpretation.
Unique: Enables ablation studies isolating the contribution of visual understanding by providing OCR and caption text alongside images. This allows direct comparison of text-only model performance (using OCR + captions) vs. multimodal model performance (using images), revealing whether mathematical reasoning requires direct visual interpretation or can be solved from text descriptions alone.
vs alternatives: More rigorous than benchmarks without text-only baselines because it quantifies the performance gap attributable to visual understanding, not just reports multimodal model accuracy. This ablation approach is standard in vision-language research but often missing from mathematical reasoning benchmarks.
Enables analysis of model performance across distinct mathematical domains (geometry, statistics, scientific figures) and visual context types, revealing which reasoning types and visual representations challenge models most. The benchmark structure supports stratified evaluation where accuracy can be computed separately for each domain, allowing researchers to identify capability gaps (e.g., models may excel at statistics but struggle with geometry). Documentation mentions performance varies significantly across mathematical reasoning types and visual context types, though specific breakdowns are not provided in public leaderboard.
Unique: Benchmark structure explicitly spans multiple mathematical domains (geometry, statistics, scientific figures) rather than focusing on single domain, enabling analysis of whether model capabilities generalize across mathematical reasoning types or are domain-specific. Documentation indicates performance varies significantly across domains, but detailed breakdowns are not published, requiring researchers to conduct their own analysis.
vs alternatives: More comprehensive than domain-specific benchmarks (e.g., geometry-only or chart-only) because it enables cross-domain comparison, revealing whether models have general visual-mathematical reasoning capabilities or domain-specific strengths/weaknesses.
Provides a web-based visualization tool (🔮 Visualize) accessible at https://mathvista.github.io for exploring individual benchmark examples, filtering by mathematical domain and visual context type, and understanding benchmark composition. The tool enables researchers to browse examples, examine model predictions vs. ground truth, and identify patterns in model failures or benchmark difficulty. This interactive exploration complements the leaderboard and dataset documentation by making benchmark content directly inspectable.
Unique: Provides interactive web-based exploration of benchmark examples rather than requiring researchers to download and process dataset locally. This lowers barrier to entry for understanding benchmark content and enables quick identification of example characteristics without programming.
vs alternatives: More accessible than static dataset documentation or leaderboard-only benchmarks because it enables interactive exploration and visual inspection of examples, making benchmark content directly inspectable rather than requiring researchers to download and analyze data themselves.
+4 more capabilities
Midjourney utilizes advanced diffusion models to generate high-quality images based on user-provided text prompts. The model is trained on a diverse dataset, allowing it to understand and creatively interpret various concepts, styles, and themes. This capability is distinct due to its focus on artistic and imaginative outputs, often producing visually striking and unique images that stand out from typical generative models.
Unique: Midjourney's focus on artistic interpretation allows it to produce images that emphasize creativity and style, unlike many other models that prioritize realism.
vs alternatives: Generates more artistically compelling images compared to DALL-E, which often leans towards photorealism.
This capability allows users to apply specific artistic styles to generated images by referencing existing artworks or styles. Midjourney employs a neural style transfer technique that blends content from the user's prompt with the characteristics of the chosen style, resulting in unique compositions that reflect both the prompt and the selected aesthetic.
Unique: Midjourney's implementation of style transfer is particularly effective due to its extensive training on diverse artistic styles, allowing for a wide range of creative outputs.
vs alternatives: Offers more nuanced style blending than Artbreeder, which often produces less distinct results.
Midjourney allows users to iteratively refine their text prompts through an interactive interface, enhancing the image generation process. Users can adjust parameters and provide feedback on generated images, which the system uses to improve subsequent outputs. This capability leverages a user-friendly design that encourages exploration and creativity, making it easier for users to achieve their desired results.
MathVista scores higher at 64/100 vs Midjourney at 45/100. MathVista also has a free tier, making it more accessible.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
Unique: The interactive refinement process is designed to be intuitive, allowing users to engage deeply with the creative process, unlike static prompt systems in other tools.
vs alternatives: More engaging and user-friendly than Stable Diffusion's static prompt input, which lacks iterative feedback mechanisms.
Midjourney fosters a community environment where users can share their generated images and receive feedback from peers. This capability is integrated into their Discord platform, allowing for real-time interaction and collaboration. Users can showcase their work, participate in challenges, and learn from others, creating a vibrant ecosystem of creativity and support.
Unique: The integration of image sharing and feedback directly within Discord creates a seamless experience for users to connect and collaborate.
vs alternatives: More integrated community features than DALL-E, which lacks a social platform for sharing and feedback.
Midjourney supports generating images that incorporate multiple aspects or elements from a single prompt, using a sophisticated understanding of context and relationships between objects. This capability allows users to create complex scenes that reflect intricate narratives or themes, utilizing advanced neural networks to parse and interpret the nuances of the input text.
Unique: Midjourney's ability to generate multi-faceted images is enhanced by its training on diverse datasets, enabling it to understand and create intricate visual narratives.
vs alternatives: Produces more cohesive multi-element images than DeepAI, which often struggles with contextual relationships.