Chartography without tools (Chartography (no tools))
We show this table for reference; we do not rank on it.
Professional chart understanding across 100 specialized chart types with expert-set answer tolerances.
Benchmark score on Chartography (no tools) — November 13, 2026
We compile the Chartography (no tools) rows from provider self-reports. Claude Fable 5.2 leads the table at 73.4%, followed by Gemini 4 Carbon (72.5%) and Gemini 4 Argon (71.6%). We do not use these results to rank models overall.
Claude Fable 5.2
Anthropic
Reported by AnthropicGemini 4 Carbon
Gemini 4 Argon
10 modelsMultimodal & GroundedCurrentDisplay onlyUpdated November 13, 2026
Benchmark score table (10 models)
All 10 results on this page were reported by the labs that built the models.
| Rank | Model / configuration | Score | Who ran it | Parameters (B) | Open / closed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Claude Fable 5.2AnthropicReported by Anthropic | 73.4% | Reported by Anthropic | Not reported | Closed |
| 2 | Gemini 4 CarbonGoogleReported by Google | 72.5% | Reported by Google | Not reported | Closed |
| 3 | Gemini 4 ArgonGoogleReported by Google | 71.6% | Reported by Google | Not reported | Closed |
| 4 | Gemini 4 HydrogenGoogleReported by Google | 66.6% | Reported by Google | Not reported | Closed |
| 5 | Claude Opus 5.5AnthropicReported by Anthropic | 64.4% | Reported by Anthropic | Not reported | Closed |
| 6 | Claude Sonnet 5.5AnthropicReported by Anthropic | 61.6% | Reported by Anthropic | Not reported | Closed |
| 7 | Claude Haiku 5.5AnthropicReported by Anthropic | 46.4% | Reported by Anthropic | Not reported | Closed |
| 8 | Claude Fable 5.1AnthropicReported by Anthropic | 42.6% | Reported by Anthropic | Not reported | Closed |
| 9 | Inkling 2 SmallThinking Machines LabReported by Thinking Machines Lab | 36.7% | Reported by Thinking Machines Lab | Not reported | Closed |
| 10 | Claude Opus 5AnthropicReported by Anthropic | 29.6% | Reported by Anthropic | Not reported | Closed |
- Lab-reported
- Benchmark-run
- Independent
Among the reported Chartography (no tools) rows, Claude Fable 5.2 is first at 73.4%. The third row is 1.8 points behind. The broader top-10 range is 43.8 points, so the table still separates the published systems.
10 models have been evaluated on Chartography (no tools). The benchmark falls in the Multimodal & Grounded category. Chartography (no tools) is currently displayed for reference but excluded from the scoring formula, so it does not directly affect overall rankings.
About Chartography (no tools)
Year
2026
Tasks
100 specialized chart types
Format
Accuracy without tools
Difficulty
Professional chart reasoning
Section 8.12.1 reports a five-run max-effort average without tools using Anthropic's implementation of the official tasks and ranges.
Freshness and provenance
Version
Chartography (no tools) 2026
Refresh cadence
Quarterly
Staleness state
Current
Question availability
Public benchmark set
BenchLM uses freshness metadata to decide whether a benchmark should still be treated as a strong differentiator, a benchmark to watch, or a display-only reference. For the full scoring policy, see the BenchLM methodology page.
Questions
What does Chartography (no tools) measure?
Professional chart understanding across 100 specialized chart types with expert-set answer tolerances.
Which model scores highest on Chartography (no tools)?
Claude Fable 5.2 by Anthropic currently leads with a score of 73.4% on Chartography (no tools).
How many models are evaluated on Chartography (no tools)?
10 AI models have published results on Chartography (no tools) in the BenchLM catalog.
Compare top models on Chartography (no tools)
Know when it’s worth switching models
The model to choose, the cheaper alternative, and the release we would wait on.
Read a sample issueJoin 7,000+ subscribers.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.