Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have gained significant attention recently, showing remarkable potential in artificial general intelligence. However, assessing the utility of MLLMs presents considerable challenges, primarily due to the absence multimodal benchmarks that align with human preferences. Inspired by LLM-as-a-Judge in LLMs, this paper introduces a novel benchmark, termed MLLM-as-a-Judge, to assess the ability of MLLMs in assisting judges including three distinct tasks: Scoring Evaluation, Pair Comparison, and Batch Ranking. Our study reveals that, while MLLMs demonstrate remarkable human-like discernment in Pair Comparisons, there is a significant divergence from human preferences in Scoring Evaluation and Batch Ranking tasks. Furthermore, MLLMs still face challenges in judgment, including diverse biases, hallucinatory responses, and inconsistencies, even for advanced models such as GPT-4V. These findings emphasize the pressing need for enhancements and further research efforts regarding MLLMs as fully reliable evaluators. Code and dataset are available at https://github.com/Dongping-Chen/MLLM-as-a-Judge.