activeVision
GDP.pdf
Metric: Accuracy (higher is better)Introduced: 2026
Visual document comprehension benchmark using economic and financial PDF charts and figures without tools.
Models ranked
4
tracked on this benchmark
Score band
81.6 – 24.9
best → lowest tracked
Snapshot trend
+6.65
Jun 9 → Aug 13 · 1 models
Leaderboard
Tracked models ranked by Accuracy (higher is better).
#Model variant and provenanceRelative to leaderScore
1
Claude Sonnet 5
81.6Version: GDP.pdf with Python tools and image cropping tool; internal harness, Opus 4.7 judge, mean criteria pass rate averaged over 5 runsHarness: Not recordedEvaluator: Not recordedObserved: Jun 30, 2026Confidence: Not recordedSource
2
Gemini 3.7 Flash
34.0Version: GDP.pdf; Gemini self-computedHarness: Not recordedEvaluator: Not recordedObserved: Aug 13, 2026Confidence: Not recordedSource
3
Claude Fable 5
29.8Version: GDP.pdf vision, no toolsHarness: Not recordedEvaluator: Not recordedObserved: Jun 9, 2026Confidence: Not recordedSource
Notes: DAT-6106: Unstarred in Anthropic's shared Fable 5/Mythos 5 launch table, so this is a Claude Fable 5 score.
How to read this benchmark
This benchmark scores models where higher is better. Use scores for directional filtering and shortlisting, not universal quality ranking; then validate pricing, context window, provider availability, and fit for your workload.
Trust this score when
- There is a fresh timestamped snapshot (or multiple snapshots) for this benchmark.
- The model list covers the same version family you can actually deploy today.
- Top candidates overlap with your required routing and feature requirements.
Be cautious when
- There is only one benchmark snapshot or the dataset appears stale.
- The benchmark metric direction is opposite of your decision objective.
- The score difference between options is narrow and likely within implementation variance.
Related benchmarks
Last reviewed: Jun 15, 2026