WMT26 General MT: WMT26 General MT (human evaluation, cESA Avg. Rank)
Human evaluation of the WMT 2026 General Machine Translation shared task (Findings, 2026.wmt-1.48). Systems are scored per language pair with contrastive Error Span Annotation (cESA, 0-100). The score stored here is the Figure 3 Avg. Rank: the average position of the system across the language pairs it entered. Rank 1 is best, so LOWER IS BETTER; it is not a 0-100 score and systems that entered different pair sets are only loosely comparable.
Models ranked
10
tracked on this benchmark
Score band
4.8 – 41.5
best → lowest tracked
Snapshot trend
—
need ≥2 snapshots
Current leaderboard
Tracked models ranked by cESA Avg. Rank (lower is better) (lower is better).
Configuration: Gemini 3.1 Pro
Notes: WMT26 General MT findings (2026.wmt-1.48), Figure 3: Avg. Rank 4.8 for the system listed as 'Gemini 3.1 Pro', averaged over the 23 language pairs it entered; rank 1 is best, so lower is better (not a 0-100 score). Per-pair cESA scores (0-100, higher is better, not comparable across pairs): cs-vi 88.5, cs-de 84.0, en-cs 75.5, en-de 78.2, en-is 84.9, en-zh-Hant 70.1, en-arz 83.7, en-ru 79.4, en-be 77.6, en-lld 45.6, en-se 61.3, en-et 81.1, en-ja 90.3, en-kk 80.0, en-id 83.5, zh-ja 75.7, en-ko 83.5, en-th 86.2, en-lij 12.4, cs-uk 84.1, en-uk 84.3, en-hy 80.7, en-zh-Hans 79.3. Preview endpoint: the paper names only 'Gemini 3.1 Pro'. Source: WMT26 organizers. Retrieved 2026-10-27.
Configuration: GPT 5.5
Notes: WMT26 General MT findings (2026.wmt-1.48), Figure 3: Avg. Rank 8.6 for the system listed as 'GPT 5.5', averaged over the 23 language pairs it entered; rank 1 is best, so lower is better (not a 0-100 score). Per-pair cESA scores (0-100, higher is better, not comparable across pairs): cs-vi 89.5, cs-de 84.8, en-cs 77.1, en-de 77.1, en-is 79.7, en-zh-Hant 68.6, en-arz 80.8, en-ru 76.0, en-be 69.6, en-lld 29.7, en-se 49.3, en-et 80.3, en-ja 86.1, en-kk 81.9, en-id 80.3, zh-ja 75.3, en-ko 80.9, en-th 82.0, en-lij 38.3, cs-uk 85.8, en-uk 80.9, en-hy 80.0, en-zh-Hans 73.3. Source: WMT26 organizers. Retrieved 2026-10-27.
Configuration: DeepSeek V4 Pro
Notes: WMT26 General MT findings (2026.wmt-1.48), Figure 3: Avg. Rank 17.5 for the system listed as 'DeepSeek V4 Pro', averaged over the 23 language pairs it entered; rank 1 is best, so lower is better (not a 0-100 score). Per-pair cESA scores (0-100, higher is better, not comparable across pairs): cs-vi 77.0, cs-de 81.3, en-cs 56.6, en-de 66.7, en-is 71.4, en-zh-Hant 64.2, en-arz 80.0, en-ru 66.2, en-be 63.0, en-lld 22.9, en-se 43.8, en-et 71.8, en-ja 83.2, en-kk 74.3, en-id 78.9, zh-ja 72.8, en-ko 74.4, en-th 71.9, en-lij 20.1, cs-uk 82.2, en-uk 80.4, en-hy 67.3, en-zh-Hans 75.3. Source: WMT26 organizers. Retrieved 2026-10-27.
Configuration: Gemma 4 - 31B
Notes: WMT26 General MT findings (2026.wmt-1.48), Figure 3: Avg. Rank 22.0 for the system listed as 'Gemma 4 - 31B', averaged over the 23 language pairs it entered; rank 1 is best, so lower is better (not a 0-100 score). Per-pair cESA scores (0-100, higher is better, not comparable across pairs): cs-vi 75.7, cs-de 76.9, en-cs 60.1, en-de 67.8, en-is 43.6, en-zh-Hant 74.3, en-arz 80.5, en-ru 73.7, en-be 49.9, en-lld 3.6, en-se 4.7, en-et 45.8, en-ja 80.5, en-kk 64.4, en-id 75.7, zh-ja 72.2, en-ko 76.2, en-th 80.0, en-lij 6.6, cs-uk 79.3, en-uk 76.3, en-hy 44.0, en-zh-Hans 72.3. WMT26 names 'Gemma 4 - 31B'; mapped to the instruction-tuned slug. Source: WMT26 organizers. Retrieved 2026-10-27.
Configuration: Command A+
Notes: WMT26 General MT findings (2026.wmt-1.48), Figure 3: Avg. Rank 26.0 for the system listed as 'Command A+', averaged over the 23 language pairs it entered; rank 1 is best, so lower is better (not a 0-100 score). Per-pair cESA scores (0-100, higher is better, not comparable across pairs): cs-vi 73.2, cs-de 71.0, en-cs 61.3, en-de 70.8, en-is 42.0, en-zh-Hant 61.9, en-arz 80.1, en-ru 70.4, en-be 53.7, en-lld 2.9, en-se 2.6, en-et 56.6, en-ja 81.4, en-kk 57.8, en-id 76.8, zh-ja 66.9, en-ko 63.0, en-th 70.1, en-lij 7.0, cs-uk 76.9, en-uk 75.9, en-hy 12.5, en-zh-Hans 65.8. Organizer baseline 'Command A+', not the Cohere CAT+ submission. Source: WMT26 organizers. Retrieved 2026-10-27.
Configuration: Mistral Medium 3.5
Notes: WMT26 General MT findings (2026.wmt-1.48), Figure 3: Avg. Rank 29.3 for the system listed as 'Mistral Medium 3.5', averaged over the 23 language pairs it entered; rank 1 is best, so lower is better (not a 0-100 score). Per-pair cESA scores (0-100, higher is better, not comparable across pairs): cs-vi 79.9, cs-de 72.5, en-cs 67.8, en-de 65.5, en-is 25.7, en-zh-Hant 55.5, en-arz 70.6, en-ru 70.1, en-be 43.2, en-lld 2.9, en-se 2.3, en-et 44.0, en-ja 74.1, en-kk 48.8, en-id 65.0, zh-ja 56.5, en-ko 58.3, en-th 53.6, en-lij 6.0, cs-uk 78.1, en-uk 70.3, en-hy 46.3, en-zh-Hans 67.6. Source: WMT26 organizers. Retrieved 2026-10-27.
Configuration: GPT OSS 120B
Notes: WMT26 General MT findings (2026.wmt-1.48), Figure 3: Avg. Rank 32.1 for the system listed as 'GPT OSS 120B', averaged over the 23 language pairs it entered; rank 1 is best, so lower is better (not a 0-100 score). Per-pair cESA scores (0-100, higher is better, not comparable across pairs): cs-vi 66.3, cs-de 62.9, en-cs 52.1, en-de 58.5, en-is 46.6, en-zh-Hant 58.1, en-arz 77.6, en-ru 56.6, en-be 30.5, en-lld 5.5, en-se 2.3, en-et 47.2, en-ja 78.2, en-kk 48.7, en-id 68.3, zh-ja 64.9, en-ko 54.6, en-th 45.5, en-lij 4.4, cs-uk 63.1, en-uk 58.1, en-hy 32.1, en-zh-Hans 61.9. Source: WMT26 organizers. Retrieved 2026-10-27.
Configuration: Qwen 3.6 - 27b
Notes: WMT26 General MT findings (2026.wmt-1.48), Figure 3: Avg. Rank 35.1 for the system listed as 'Qwen 3.6 - 27b', averaged over the 23 language pairs it entered; rank 1 is best, so lower is better (not a 0-100 score). Per-pair cESA scores (0-100, higher is better, not comparable across pairs): cs-vi 63.4, cs-de 58.3, en-cs 61.9, en-de 51.1, en-is 33.0, en-zh-Hant 59.4, en-arz 65.4, en-ru 54.4, en-be 27.6, en-lld 3.0, en-se 13.9, en-et 39.3, en-ja 68.7, en-kk 43.4, en-id 59.8, zh-ja 55.7, en-ko 55.8, en-th 42.1, en-lij 5.7, cs-uk 59.0, en-uk 44.3, en-hy 21.6, en-zh-Hans 63.8. Source: WMT26 organizers. Retrieved 2026-10-27.
Configuration: GPT OSS 20B
Notes: WMT26 General MT findings (2026.wmt-1.48), Figure 3: Avg. Rank 39.8 for the system listed as 'GPT OSS 20B', averaged over the 23 language pairs it entered; rank 1 is best, so lower is better (not a 0-100 score). Per-pair cESA scores (0-100, higher is better, not comparable across pairs): cs-vi 60.6, cs-de 45.4, en-cs 37.7, en-de 37.5, en-is 24.1, en-zh-Hant 53.3, en-arz 69.9, en-ru 49.5, en-be 21.6, en-lld 1.1, en-se 0.8, en-et 23.3, en-ja 72.4, en-kk 40.8, en-id 56.0, zh-ja 55.1, en-ko 52.0, en-th 31.3, en-lij 2.4, cs-uk 49.7, en-uk 44.6, en-hy 29.0, en-zh-Hans 51.7. Source: WMT26 organizers. Retrieved 2026-10-27.
Configuration: Qwen 3.5 - 9b
Notes: WMT26 General MT findings (2026.wmt-1.48), Figure 3: Avg. Rank 41.5 for the system listed as 'Qwen 3.5 - 9b', averaged over the 23 language pairs it entered; rank 1 is best, so lower is better (not a 0-100 score). Per-pair cESA scores (0-100, higher is better, not comparable across pairs): cs-vi 66.3, cs-de 53.7, en-cs 32.4, en-de 30.9, en-is 17.4, en-zh-Hant 51.3, en-arz 54.3, en-ru 44.4, en-be 16.5, en-lld 1.1, en-se 0.6, en-et 24.9, en-ja 57.4, en-kk 30.4, en-id 54.1, zh-ja 53.1, en-ko 18.9, en-th 37.4, en-lij 1.4, cs-uk 59.6, en-uk 48.3, en-hy 18.8, en-zh-Hans 55.4. Source: WMT26 organizers. Retrieved 2026-10-27.
Attribution. Source: Findings of the WMT26 General Machine Translation Shared Task (Kocmi et al., 2026)
How to read this benchmark
This benchmark scores models where lower 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.
Last reviewed: Oct 27, 2026