Skip to content
#16AJul 15, 2026Evidence A

InternVL 4.0

Shanghai AI Laboratory · Undisclosed (MoE, ~9B active)

The open-source perception ceiling, with video as the priced-in trade

Almost absent from public comparisons, yet a long-time top-three download in the open-source community. Perception 96 is the highest open-weights score below the closed flagships, MIT licence, official API at ¥1/1M output tokens; the price is images and text only — video 66 is third from the bottom here. It is the only model on this 26-model board where community heat and ranking heat run in opposite directions.

TextImageNative

Last updated Oct 18, 2026Editorial scoring

Bottom line

For image-text perception, fine-grained recognition and on-prem work at the ¥1-per-1,000 tier, InternVL 4.0 is the only option combining grade-A evidence, an MIT licence and perception 96. But it does images and text only: expect nothing from video, GUI or generation. Use it as a perception component, not as your multimodal workhorse.

Eight-dimension breakdown

editorial mapping · 0–100
Perception96Document93Chart QA90Video66Agent78Generation70Chinese89Ecosystem848D
  • InternVL 4.085.0
Visual perception & grounding20%
96
Document parsing & Chinese OCR18%
93
Chart & document reasoning14%
90
Video & long-horizon reasoning14%
66
GUI agents & tool use14%
78
Generation & editing6%
70
Chinese context & culture6%
89
Ecosystem, cost & availability8%
84

Weights: perception 20 / documents 18 / charts 14 / video 14 / agents 14 / generation 6 / Chinese 6 / ecosystem 8. Definitions and sources on the methodology page.

Public benchmarks

as reported, not converted
Benchmark / metricValueNote
OpenCompass 多模态榜78.9#1 open-weights entry (official)
MMMU81.2Official, same prompts for val/test
输出单价¥1Official API; weights free

Public scores come from different versions and prompts and are not interchangeable with our composite; they are one evidence input.

Scenario mapping

five stress tests, one scale
ScenarioScoreObservation
Chinese receipt OCR93 · Strong on print, mid on handwriting
Chart data extraction90 · Reliable on single figures
30-min video QA62 · Frame-level description only
Mobile GUI control74 · Not trained for GUI
Fine-grained recognition96 · Same as our perception dimension

Strengths and limitations

Strengths

  • Perception 96 — the highest open-weights score, behind only Doubao and Qwen3.8-Max at 97.
  • MIT licence plus an official API: switching between self-hosted and managed carries no legal cost.
  • Grade A: the most-reproduced open model here, with weights and eval scripts fully public.

Limitations

  • Images and text only: no video, audio or GUI modality, and agent 78 sits below the enterprise floor.
  • Video 66 is third from the bottom here — frame-level description at best, no temporal reasoning.
  • Ecosystem 84: the official API trails the Qwen family on stability and docs, and self-hosting means building your own inference stack.

Price and real cost

List price

¥1/M tokens

≈ ¥1 / 1M output tokens (official API); weights free. For 1,000 images at 1,024px, ~1,100 image tokens each and 300 output tokens, the monthly cost is about ¥0.6 (assuming input at 25% of output price).

Use your volume

About InternVL 4.0

Is InternVL 4.0 open source?

Licence: Open weights (MIT). Weights are available, but check the exact terms and filing requirements before commercial use.

How much does InternVL 4.0 cost?

≈ ¥1 / 1M output tokens (official API); weights free. It ranks #16 with a composite of 85.0. Real bills depend on resolution, tiling, caching and volume discounts.

What is InternVL 4.0 best for?

Fine-grained recognition and product-attribute extraction; Commercial on-prem work that needs an MIT licence; A perception component inside an open-source stack。

Why does InternVL 4.0 score 85.0?

The composite weights eight dimensions: perception 20%, documents 18%, charts 14%, video 14%, agents 14%, generation 6%, Chinese 6%, ecosystem 8%. Its strongest dimension is Visual perception & grounding; its weakest is Video & long-horizon reasoning.

Personal ranking · Not an official score

Every ranking, score and comparison on this page is an independent personal ranking, not an official score, and represents no vendor, institution or regulator. Scores are a subjective mapping of public evidence under our own weights — change the weights and the order changes. Disagree, or spotted a factual error? Contact the site owner: jizhi2024@foxmail.com — we check each report and log corrections in the changelog.