CV | CVPR · ICCV · ECCV · WACV · BMVC: A Complete Conference Comparison Guide
Which computer vision conference should you target? This guide compares the five major CV conferences CVPR, ICCV, ECCV, WACV, and BMVC to help researchers strategically choose where to submit based on their research focus and career stage.
May 28, 2026
🎓 Five Conferences at a Glance
ㅤ | CVPR | ICCV | ECCV | WACV | BMVC |
h-5 index | 422 (AI #1) | 228 | 238 | 95 | 77 |
Organizer | IEEE/CVF | IEEE/CVF | ECVA | IEEE/CVF | BMVA |
Submission deadline | November | March | March | July | May |
Frequency | Annual | Odd years | Even years | Annual | Annual |
Location | North America | Rotating | Europe | US resort cities | UK |
Acceptance rate | 25% | 24% | 30% | 38% | 32% |
Submissions | ~16,092(’26) | ~11,239(’25) | ~8,585(’24) | ~2,458(’26) | ~865(’25) |
Workshops | 120+ | 80–100 | 70–80 | 2–3 | 1–2 |
Research Focus and Recent Trends
CVPR
The undisputed #1 in computer vision — where trends are made.
CVPR holds an h5-index of 422, the highest in the AI field, and remains the most influential venue for computer vision research.
Scale and competition are intensifying. Submissions grew from 9,155 in 2023 to 16,092 in 2026. The reviewer pool is under enormous strain, and solid-but-unspectacular work increasingly struggles to stand out.
Current hot topics include: 3D from multi-view and sensors, image and video synthesis, multimodal learning, and vision-language reasoning. Workshop themes center on 3D-LLM, robotics, and generative models.
Strategic fit: If your research is among the most trending topics in the community (3D generative models, multimodal LLMs) and achieves state-of-the-art results on major benchmarks, CVPR is your first choice without question.
ICCV
Where foundational contributions and long-term academic value are recognized.
ICCV submissions have also grown rapidly — from 8,620 in 2023 to 11,239 in 2025. What distinguishes ICCV from CVPR is its culture of valuing research that stands the test of time.
The Marr Prize (Best Paper) and the Helmholtz Prize (Test of Time Award, given to papers from 10+ years ago with lasting impact) signal ICCV's commitment to research that advances the field fundamentally, not just benchmarks.
Strategic fit: If your work defines a new problem, proposes novel theoretical foundations, or introduces a new methodological framework — rather than competing on SOTA numbers — ICCV reviewers are more likely to reward that kind of contribution.
ECCV
The most analysis-friendly venue among the Big 3.
ECCV 2024 (Milan) saw 8,585 submissions with 2,595 accepted — a 30.23% acceptance rate, the highest among the Big 3. ECCV is distinctive in that strong analysis and rigorous reasoning can compensate for not achieving SOTA.
Workshop themes often include Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, reflecting a higher interest in the ethical and social dimensions of computer vision.
Strategic fit: If your paper's strength lies in deep analysis of existing models, proposing new evaluation metrics, or rigorous experimental/theoretical reasoning, ECCV is the best choice. A paper 1% below SOTA on benchmarks can still succeed at ECCV if the analysis is compelling.
WACV
The go-to venue for vision applications research.
WACV was intentionally created to serve applied vision research as the Big 3 skewed increasingly theoretical. Applications are not a second-class citizen here — they are the entire point.
Unique two-round review process: Papers receiving a "Resubmit" decision in Round 1 may incorporate reviewer feedback and resubmit in Round 2. Combined with a ~40% acceptance rate, this reflects WACV's philosophy of improving papers, not just rejecting them.
Two distinct tracks:
- Algorithms Track — evaluated similarly to the Big 3; ideal for papers narrowly rejected from CVPR/ICCV/ECCV
- Applications Track — novelty of the domain and system-level innovation matter more than algorithmic novelty
Strategic fit: If your core contribution is solving a real-world problem (medical imaging, agriculture, robotics, autonomous driving) using existing models in an innovative way, WACV's Applications Track may value your work more than the Big 3 would. A system that gets rejected from CVPR for "insufficient algorithmic contribution" can be an Oral candidate at WACV.
BMVC
Harder than its h-index suggests — and home to brave new ideas.
BMVC's 2025 acceptance rate was 32%. The lower h5-index (77) reflects submission volume, not quality.
The "Brave New Ideas" track is what makes BMVC unique. The CFP explicitly calls for "not beating SOTA but a new approach, theory, niche" — actively encouraging research that departs radically from existing paradigms.
Strategic fit: If your research is highly creative (e.g., a non-deep-learning approach) but doesn't yet match SOTA performance, BMVC's Brave New Ideas track offers a legitimate venue where the idea's originality is evaluated on its own terms. Papers that would be rejected elsewhere for "weak empirical results" can find recognition here.
Which Conference Fits Your Paper?
Scenario 1: "SOTA on a core benchmark"
Your paper proposes a new architecture or technique and achieves state-of-the-art on object detection, 3D reconstruction, or image generation.
→ First choice: CVPR / ICCV
SOTA results are the strongest signal for CVPR reviewers. If your work is trending and competitive, don't undersell it.
Scenario 2: "Real-world application system"
You didn't invent a new algorithm, but you combined existing vision models (YOLO, ViT, UNet) in a novel way to solve a concrete problem in healthcare, agriculture, or robotics.
→ First choice: WACV (Applications Track)
The Big 3 may reject this as lacking algorithmic novelty. WACV's Applications Track recognizes exactly this kind of system-level and domain innovation.
Scenario 3: "Original idea, not yet SOTA"
Your approach is genuinely novel — perhaps non-deep-learning or theoretically unconventional — but benchmark numbers lag current methods.
→ First choice: BMVC (Brave New Ideas Track)→ Second choice: ECCV
ECCV also rewards careful analysis over raw SOTA. Clearly explaining why performance is lower, and why the approach still matters, can persuade reviewers.
Scenario 4: "Deep analysis or theoretical contribution"
Your work doesn't propose a new model, but provides rigorous empirical or theoretical analysis of why existing methods (Diffusion Models, ViT) succeed or fail, or introduces a new evaluation metric.
→ First choice: ECCV→ Second choice: ICCV
Both value foundational contributions that don't require SOTA benchmarks.
Scenario 5: "Borderline rejection from the Big 3"
You received weak reject or borderline from CVPR/ICCV/ECCV with clear, addressable reviewer feedback.
→ First choice: WACV (Algorithms Track)
The two-round review system is ideal for incorporating Big 3 feedback. You can explicitly address reviewer concerns in Round 2.
→ Second choice: BMVC (Main Track)
Competitive at 32% acceptance, but smaller submission volume means reviewers generally give more careful attention to each paper.
Choosing by Career Stage
Early PhD / limited publication experience:
Build experience at WACV or BMVC first. Both have a relatively supportive review culture. Use Big 3 workshop submissions to gain exposure while strengthening your work before targeting the main tracks.
Mid-to-late PhD:
A top-tier publication becomes critical for your career trajectory. Target the Big 3 based on your paper's completion timeline — CVPR for fall completions, ICCV/ECCV for spring completions. Use WACV/BMVC strategically for follow-up work.
Industry researchers:
CVPR first. The industry presence, hiring activity at the expo, and general visibility make it the highest-ROI venue for industry R&D. If your work is application-focused, WACV is also worth considering.
💡 Finding the right venue, not the highest-ranked one
The goal isn't to target CVPR because it has the highest h5-index. A paper that earns an Oral at WACV's Applications Track or recognition in BMVC's Brave New Ideas Track — where your specific contribution is fully understood and valued — often has more lasting impact than being one of thousands of posters at CVPR.
Match your venue to your contribution. That's the strategic move.
Share article