| 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Paid |
| Capabilities | 12 decomposed | 5 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Evaluates multimodal agents' ability to interact with actual operating system graphical interfaces across Ubuntu, Windows, and macOS by executing tasks that require screenshot understanding, mouse/keyboard simulation, and application navigation. Uses custom execution-based evaluation scripts per task that capture initial OS state, execute agent actions, and verify task completion against ground truth outcomes in real sandboxed environments.
Unique: Executes tasks on actual operating systems (Ubuntu, Windows, macOS) with custom per-task evaluation scripts rather than simulated environments or synthetic UI frameworks. Grounds agent evaluation in real application behavior, file I/O, and OS-level state changes, capturing the complexity of multi-app workflows and GUI grounding that synthetic benchmarks cannot replicate.
vs alternatives: More realistic than simulated GUI benchmarks (e.g., WebShop, MiniWoB) because it tests against actual OS behavior and real applications, but requires significantly more computational infrastructure than synthetic alternatives, making it less accessible for individual researchers.
Distributes 369 benchmark tasks across three operating systems (Ubuntu, Windows, macOS) with OS-specific initial state configurations and evaluation scripts. Each task includes a detailed setup configuration that establishes the OS environment, file structures, and application states before agent execution, enabling reproducible evaluation of agent performance across platform-specific UI paradigms and application ecosystems.
Unique: Includes OS-specific initial state setup configurations and custom evaluation scripts per task, rather than a single generic task definition. This approach captures OS-level differences in file systems, UI paradigms, and application ecosystems, but requires maintaining three parallel task implementations and evaluation harnesses.
vs alternatives: More comprehensive than single-OS benchmarks because it tests cross-platform generalization, but significantly increases benchmark maintenance burden and infrastructure requirements compared to OS-agnostic synthetic benchmarks.
Evaluates agent capability to understand and interact with graphical user interfaces by analyzing screenshots and identifying UI elements, buttons, menus, and text fields. Tests agent ability to visually ground task instructions in the actual UI state, a capability identified as a key limitation in current agents.
Unique: Explicitly evaluates GUI grounding and visual understanding as a core agent capability, identifying it as a key limitation in current agents. This focuses evaluation on a specific bottleneck rather than treating visual understanding as a solved problem.
vs alternatives: More targeted than generic multimodal benchmarks because it focuses on GUI understanding as a specific capability, but may not capture other important agent limitations like operational knowledge or task planning.
Evaluates agent capability to understand how to use applications and perform operations within them, testing knowledge of application-specific workflows, menu structures, keyboard shortcuts, and domain-specific operations. Identified as a key limitation in current agents alongside GUI grounding.
Unique: Explicitly evaluates operational knowledge and application expertise as a core agent capability, identifying it as a key limitation in current agents. This tests agent capability to understand how to use applications, not just how to interact with GUIs.
vs alternatives: More comprehensive than GUI-only benchmarks because it tests both visual understanding and operational knowledge, but harder to diagnose which capability is limiting agent performance.
Implements task-specific evaluation scripts that execute agent actions against real OS state and verify completion by checking file system changes, application state modifications, and other observable outcomes. Each of the 369 tasks includes a custom evaluation script that defines success criteria, captures execution traces, and produces reproducible verdicts independent of agent architecture or implementation details.
Unique: Uses custom per-task evaluation scripts rather than generic scoring functions, enabling task-specific success criteria that capture domain knowledge (e.g., correct file format, application-specific state changes). This approach is more accurate than generic metrics but requires significant engineering effort and domain expertise per task.
vs alternatives: More accurate than generic scoring functions for complex, multi-step tasks, but less scalable and harder to maintain than standardized evaluation metrics used in simpler benchmarks.
Grounds benchmark tasks in real-world computer use cases derived from actual user workflows, file management operations, application usage patterns, and multi-app interactions. Tasks are not synthetic or artificially constructed but represent genuine computer tasks that users perform, including file organization, document editing, web browsing, email management, and cross-application data workflows.
Unique: Tasks are derived from real-world computer use cases rather than synthetic or artificially constructed scenarios, aiming to evaluate agent capability on tasks that users actually perform. This grounds evaluation in practical utility but introduces data contamination risks and makes it harder to control task difficulty and distribution.
vs alternatives: More practically relevant than synthetic benchmarks (e.g., WebShop, MiniWoB) because tasks represent actual user workflows, but less controlled and harder to validate than carefully constructed synthetic tasks with known difficulty and no training data overlap.
Provides standardized evaluation infrastructure for measuring multimodal agent performance (combining vision and language understanding) on computer task completion. Establishes baseline human performance (72.36% success rate) and current state-of-the-art model performance (12.24% success rate), quantifying the gap between human and AI agent capability on real OS tasks.
Unique: Establishes quantified baseline performance (human 72.36% vs SOTA 12.24%) on real OS tasks, creating a measurable target for agent improvement. The large gap indicates substantial room for progress and highlights specific capability gaps (GUI grounding, operational knowledge) that agents need to address.
vs alternatives: More realistic performance measurement than synthetic benchmarks because it uses real OS environments and real-world tasks, but the 60+ percentage point gap between human and SOTA performance suggests the benchmark may be too difficult to provide useful signal for incremental improvements.
Provides a web-based interactive viewer for exploring benchmark tasks, initial states, expected outcomes, and evaluation results. Enables researchers and developers to inspect individual tasks, understand evaluation criteria, and analyze agent performance without requiring local execution of the full benchmark infrastructure.
Unique: Provides interactive web-based exploration of benchmark tasks and results rather than requiring local data access or command-line tools. Lowers barrier to entry for researchers who want to understand benchmark tasks without setting up evaluation infrastructure.
vs alternatives: More accessible than command-line or programmatic data access, but potentially less powerful for bulk analysis or custom queries compared to direct data access.
+4 more capabilities
Midjourney utilizes advanced diffusion models to generate high-quality images based on user-provided text prompts. The model is trained on a diverse dataset, allowing it to understand and creatively interpret various concepts, styles, and themes. This capability is distinct due to its focus on artistic and imaginative outputs, often producing visually striking and unique images that stand out from typical generative models.
Unique: Midjourney's focus on artistic interpretation allows it to produce images that emphasize creativity and style, unlike many other models that prioritize realism.
vs alternatives: Generates more artistically compelling images compared to DALL-E, which often leans towards photorealism.
This capability allows users to apply specific artistic styles to generated images by referencing existing artworks or styles. Midjourney employs a neural style transfer technique that blends content from the user's prompt with the characteristics of the chosen style, resulting in unique compositions that reflect both the prompt and the selected aesthetic.
Unique: Midjourney's implementation of style transfer is particularly effective due to its extensive training on diverse artistic styles, allowing for a wide range of creative outputs.
vs alternatives: Offers more nuanced style blending than Artbreeder, which often produces less distinct results.
Midjourney allows users to iteratively refine their text prompts through an interactive interface, enhancing the image generation process. Users can adjust parameters and provide feedback on generated images, which the system uses to improve subsequent outputs. This capability leverages a user-friendly design that encourages exploration and creativity, making it easier for users to achieve their desired results.
OSWorld scores higher at 64/100 vs Midjourney at 45/100. OSWorld also has a free tier, making it more accessible.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
Unique: The interactive refinement process is designed to be intuitive, allowing users to engage deeply with the creative process, unlike static prompt systems in other tools.
vs alternatives: More engaging and user-friendly than Stable Diffusion's static prompt input, which lacks iterative feedback mechanisms.
Midjourney fosters a community environment where users can share their generated images and receive feedback from peers. This capability is integrated into their Discord platform, allowing for real-time interaction and collaboration. Users can showcase their work, participate in challenges, and learn from others, creating a vibrant ecosystem of creativity and support.
Unique: The integration of image sharing and feedback directly within Discord creates a seamless experience for users to connect and collaborate.
vs alternatives: More integrated community features than DALL-E, which lacks a social platform for sharing and feedback.
Midjourney supports generating images that incorporate multiple aspects or elements from a single prompt, using a sophisticated understanding of context and relationships between objects. This capability allows users to create complex scenes that reflect intricate narratives or themes, utilizing advanced neural networks to parse and interpret the nuances of the input text.
Unique: Midjourney's ability to generate multi-faceted images is enhanced by its training on diverse datasets, enabling it to understand and create intricate visual narratives.
vs alternatives: Produces more cohesive multi-element images than DeepAI, which often struggles with contextual relationships.