BenchCAD: A Comprehensive, Industry-Standard Benchmark for Programmatic CAD

Recovering editable CAD programs from images or 3D observations is central to AI-assisted design, but progress is difficult to measure because existing evaluations are fragmented across datasets, modalities, and metrics. We introduce CADBench, a unified benchmark for multimodal CAD program generation. CADBench contains 18,000 evaluation samples spanning six benchmark families derived from DeepCAD, Fusion 360, ABC, MCB, and Objaverse; five input modalities including clean meshes, noisy meshes, single-view renders, photorealistic renders, and multi-view renders; and six metrics covering geometric fidelity, executability, and program compactness. STEP-based families are stratified by B-rep face count and all families are diversity-sampled to support controlled analysis across complexity and object variation. We benchmark eleven CAD-specialized and general-purpose vision-language systems, generating more than 1.4 million CAD programs. Under idealized inputs, specialized mesh-to-CAD models substantially outperform code-generating VLMs, which remain far from reliable CAD program reconstruction. CADBench further reveals three recurring failure modes: reconstruction quality degrades with geometric complexity, CAD-specialized models can be brittle under modality shift, and model rankings change across metrics. Together, these results position CADBench as a diagnostic testbed for measuring progress in editable 3D reconstruction and multimodal CAD understanding. The benchmark is publicly available at https://github.com/anniedoris/CADBench.

Parametric computer-aided design (CAD) modeling is difficult to evaluate with a single metric. Existing CAD benchmarks often emphasize synthetic or CAD-native settings, limited input modalities, or executability and IoUs alone. We introduce RealCADBench, a benchmark for intent-to-program CAD modeling from real industrial design intents. It contains 12,632 tasks from 19 factory-automation categories and spans text descriptions, 2D engineering drawings, real product pictures, and rendered images for both Part and Assembly modeling. We report results on a 1,770-task evaluation slice: 1,745 Part tasks across four input regimes and RCB-Assm25, a 25-task assembly study used in every reported assembly comparison. Each method generates FreeCAD API Python, which a shared runtime executes to export the 3D model. We evaluate the exported model using executability, Solid IoU, Surface IoU, and a rubric-based visual-semantic identity Judge. Among the nine standalone frontier large models evaluated, no model leads all four metrics. Across six frontier-scale large models, executability ranges from 0.565 to 0.812, Solid IoU from 0.2841 to 0.5379, and Surface IoU from 0.112 to 0.217 across the four Part regimes. The highest regime-balanced composite comes from a different model than the leaders on the four component metrics. On RCB-Assm25, Codex with GPT-5.5 improves executability and both IoU metrics over standalone GPT-5.5, but lowers the Judge score by 6.98 percentage points, leaving GPT-5.5 as the Judge leader. We also observe recurring failure modes, most notably missing fine structures, loss of part identity, and incorrect assembly placement. These results show that execution alone is insufficient to characterize realistic CAD modeling and that frontier models and agents differ substantially across executability, IoUs, and visual-semantic identity.

A CAD model is not engineering-grade merely because it looks correct. It must satisfy design requirements, respond predictably to parameter changes, support controlled edits, match a reference structural response under a declared analysis, and connect to other parts through valid joints. We present CADEngBench, a two-track benchmark for these capabilities. CADEngBench-P evaluates 300 parametric parts, each used for one zero-to-CAD task and one functional-editing task (600 tasks in total), through boundary-representation (B-Rep) validity, engineering and DFM checks, parameter-family perturbations, functional editing, and matched linear-static FEA in CalculiX. CADEngBench-A evaluates 150 body pairs through ranked joint retrieval, exact face-and-edge grounding, joint-frame prediction, and kinematic verification. Across eight multimodal, code-capable models, editing supplied CAD is substantially easier than generating it, while complex edits and matched FEA remain difficult. Assembly predictions often locate the relevant region but fail to recover the recorded joint or mating entities. These results show that CAD evaluation must test engineering behavior rather than appearance alone.