MethodologyAnnotator qualityUpdatesHugging Face366.6k downloadsSuggest a model or benchmarkRequest a private benchmark
Benchmarks
Dimensions
License
Models
Categories
Output Type
Style & Composition
Subject
SVG v1updated 2026-08-20

The Human-Preference Leaderboard for SVG Generation

Rapidatabenchmark@rapidata.ai

Continuously updated rankings of generative models from 3,502,090 votes across 858,068 pairwise human-preference matches. Quality is decomposed into capability dimensions: a fixed, curated prompt set paired with a single criterion, fitted with a Bradley–Terry model on the Elo scale. All data and judgments are public.

1  Methodology

We evaluate generative model performance purely on human feedback. Humans perform inconsistently on absolute judgements, but much better in a comparative setting. Our rating is therefore based on pair-wise matches, the results of which are jointly fit using the Bradley–Terry model where the probability of model m beating model m′ is given by:

P(m ≻ m′) =eβmeβm + eβm′=11 + e−(βm − βm′)(1)

A match pairs outputs from two models for the same prompt. As evaluating all permutations is infeasible, matches are sampled, ensuring broad coverage per model. The resulting scores are scaled to the familiar Elo range via Rm = 400 βm + 1000 (2), which stretches standard Elo by ln 10 ≈ 2.3 to better highlight differences in model capability.

We curated a fixed set of prompts across 9 categories focusing on commercial applicability and ensuring reproducibility of the results.

To ensure trustworthy ratings we employ several measures, notably annotator pre-filtering via gold-standard questions, and redundancy, collecting a minimum of m responses per match (m = 3) and deciding the winner by majority. Read more

LeaderboardCompare OutputsMatchupsAnalysisPromptsNotes
#
Model
Organization
Score
95% CI
Interval
Responses
Matches
Win rate
#
Model
Score

Table 1. Overall standings, SVG generation benchmark. Scores from a Bradley–Terry fit rescaled to Elo; intervals are 95% Wald intervals. Click any row to view sample outputs in Figure 1.

Methodology notesCompare Outputs
Figure 1. Sample outputs from quiver-arrow-2-telos on representative prompts from the fixed set. Outputs shown are those used in matches.
Score vs. cost
50010001500$0.2$1$5$20cost, USD per 1M tokens (log scale)score

Figure 2. Overall Elo against the provider's list price, cost on a log scale. Teal-ringed models are the Pareto frontier, no model is both cheaper and better, joined by a step line, so picking a budget on the x-axis reads off the best model at or under it. Faded models are dominated; whiskers are the score 95% CI. Prices are hand-maintained snapshots of provider list prices, blending each provider’s input and output rates 3:1, (3 × input + output) / 4 per million tokens; 9 models without a recorded price are not shown. Hover a model for exact numbers.

Evaluation: Models are compared on the same prompts through pairwise human judgements.
Score: Scores show relative performance within this benchmark. A higher score means a model was more likely to be preferred over the other evaluated models.
Uncertainty: The 95% confidence interval shows the uncertainty around each model’s estimated score.
Views: Results can be explored by overall preference, coherence, prompt alignment, and by prompt category.
Coverage: This benchmark includes a fixed prompt set across multiple categories, evaluated on all ranked models.
Data: Available prompts, model outputs, and evaluation results can be downloaded for further analysis.
Version: Results correspond to SVG v1, last updated on 2026-10-20.

We use crowd intelligence to deliver real, diverse human feedback at scale for model evaluation and post-training.

Benchmarks
Text-to-ImageCamera MovementRelative Camera MovementPhysicsRealismImage-to-3DSVGSuggest a model or benchmark
Method
MethodologyData on Hugging Face
Rapidata
rapidata.ai Private benchmarksContactX LinkedIn
Rapidata, benchmark.ai © 2026