Big Code Bench
BenchmarkFreeComprehensive code benchmark — 1,140 practical tasks with real library usage beyond HumanEval.
Capabilities11 decomposed
multi-split code generation task evaluation with pass@k metrics
Medium confidenceEvaluates LLM code generation across 1,140 realistic programming tasks organized into two splits (Complete for all models, Instruct for chat models) using pass@k statistical metrics that measure the probability at least one of k generated samples passes all test cases. The system generates multiple code samples per task, executes each against embedded test suites, and aggregates results into pass@1, pass@10, pass@100 metrics for comparative model analysis.
Uses realistic library-heavy programming tasks (NumPy, Pandas, Matplotlib) with 1,140 diverse examples instead of toy algorithmic problems like HumanEval's 164 tasks, requiring models to demonstrate practical software engineering knowledge rather than algorithmic puzzle-solving
More representative of real-world code generation demands than HumanEval because it emphasizes library API knowledge and complex multi-step implementations across practical domains
unified multi-provider code generation with model abstraction layer
Medium confidenceProvides a unified interface for generating code samples across heterogeneous LLM providers (OpenAI, Anthropic, Ollama, local models) through a provider-agnostic abstraction that handles API differences, authentication, and response parsing. The system maps provider-specific APIs to a common code generation interface, enabling seamless model swapping without changing benchmark code.
Implements a provider abstraction layer that normalizes API differences across OpenAI, Anthropic, Ollama, and local models, allowing single benchmark code to run against any provider without conditional logic or provider-specific wrappers
Reduces benchmark maintenance burden compared to maintaining separate evaluation pipelines per provider, enabling fair cross-provider comparison with identical prompts and execution
model configuration and generation parameter tuning
Medium confidenceSupports configurable generation parameters (temperature, top_p, max_tokens, n_samples) that control LLM sampling behavior and output diversity. Users can specify different parameter sets per model, enabling exploration of temperature-quality tradeoffs and sample efficiency without code changes.
Exposes generation parameters (temperature, top_p, n_samples) as first-class configuration enabling systematic exploration of sampling strategies and cost-quality tradeoffs without code modification
More flexible than fixed-parameter benchmarks because it enables model-specific tuning and cost-quality analysis, though requires more compute for comprehensive parameter exploration
sandboxed code execution with multiple environment backends
Medium confidenceExecutes generated code samples in isolated environments using pluggable backends (local execution with safety limits, E2B sandbox for remote execution, Hugging Face Gradio spaces) that prevent malicious or buggy code from affecting the host system. Each backend enforces resource limits, timeout constraints, and dependency isolation while capturing stdout/stderr and execution results for evaluation.
Provides three pluggable execution backends (local with safety limits, E2B remote sandbox, Hugging Face Gradio) allowing users to trade off isolation strength vs latency based on threat model and scalability needs, with unified result capture across all backends
More flexible than single-backend solutions because it supports both local development (fast iteration) and production-grade remote sandboxing (strong isolation) without code changes
code sanitization and syntax validation before execution
Medium confidencePre-processes generated code through a sanitization pipeline that removes unsafe patterns (e.g., file system operations, network calls) and validates Python syntax using AST parsing before execution. The system identifies and flags code that violates safety constraints, preventing execution of malicious or structurally invalid code while maintaining semantic correctness for legitimate implementations.
Uses AST-based syntax validation combined with pattern-matching sanitization to detect both structural code errors and unsafe operations before sandbox execution, reducing wasted compute on guaranteed-to-fail code
More precise than regex-based sanitization because AST parsing understands Python syntax structure, reducing false positives while catching actual syntax errors
dataset management with task splits and difficulty stratification
Medium confidenceManages a curated dataset of 1,140 programming tasks organized into two splits (Complete for all models, Instruct for instruction-tuned models) and two difficulty subsets (full benchmark, hard subset with 148 challenging tasks). Each task includes docstrings, natural language instructions, test cases, and metadata enabling stratified evaluation across model types and difficulty levels.
Provides two orthogonal task splits (Complete vs Instruct) and difficulty subsets (full vs hard) allowing researchers to evaluate models on matched task distributions, rather than forcing all models through identical task sets regardless of architecture
More flexible than single-task-set benchmarks because it enables fair comparison between base models (Complete split) and instruction-tuned models (Instruct split) without contaminating results with mismatched task formats
result aggregation and pass@k metric computation
Medium confidenceAggregates per-task execution results into statistical pass@k metrics that estimate the probability at least one of k generated samples passes all test cases. The system computes pass@1, pass@10, pass@100 from raw execution results, handles edge cases (fewer than k samples generated), and produces leaderboard-formatted output for model comparison.
Implements pass@k metric computation with proper handling of edge cases (fewer than k samples) and produces leaderboard-formatted output, enabling standardized comparison across models and publication-ready results
More statistically rigorous than simple pass-rate metrics because pass@k accounts for sampling variance and provides confidence estimates across different sample budgets
cli-driven evaluation workflow with modular commands
Medium confidenceExposes four main CLI commands (generate, evaluate, syncheck, inspect) that decompose the benchmark workflow into discrete, composable steps. Users can generate code samples, validate syntax, execute evaluations, and analyze results independently, enabling partial re-runs, debugging, and custom pipeline construction without re-generating all samples.
Decomposes benchmark evaluation into four independent CLI commands (generate, evaluate, syncheck, inspect) allowing users to re-run individual steps without regenerating all samples, enabling efficient iteration and debugging
More flexible than monolithic evaluation scripts because modular commands enable partial re-runs and custom pipeline construction, reducing iteration time during development
result persistence and result analysis with structured output formats
Medium confidencePersists generated code samples and evaluation results to disk using structured formats (JSONL for samples, JSON for metrics) organized by model, split, backend, and temperature. The system maintains consistent file naming conventions enabling result tracking, comparison, and re-analysis without re-running evaluations.
Uses structured file naming conventions that encode model, split, backend, temperature, and sample count, enabling systematic result organization and comparison without requiring a centralized database
Simpler than database-backed result storage for small-scale benchmarks, but requires careful file management and custom scripts for analysis compared to SQL-based alternatives
docker-based e2b sandbox template configuration
Medium confidenceProvides pre-configured Docker templates (e2b.Dockerfile, e2b.toml) for deploying isolated code execution environments via E2B sandbox service. Templates define base image, dependency installation, resource limits, and timeout configuration, enabling reproducible remote execution without manual environment setup.
Provides pre-configured Docker templates for E2B deployment, eliminating manual environment setup while maintaining reproducibility through version-controlled configuration files
More reproducible than ad-hoc sandbox configuration because templates are version-controlled and can be shared across teams, reducing environment drift
task-specific test case execution and result capture
Medium confidenceExecutes generated code against embedded test cases for each task, capturing execution results (pass/fail), stdout/stderr output, execution time, and error traces. The system handles test case isolation, timeout enforcement, and exception handling to produce reliable pass/fail verdicts even when code crashes or hangs.
Executes task-specific test cases with comprehensive result capture (stdout, stderr, execution time, error traces) enabling detailed failure analysis beyond simple pass/fail verdicts
More informative than binary pass/fail metrics because captured execution details enable root cause analysis of failures and performance profiling
Capabilities are decomposed by AI analysis. Each maps to specific user intents and improves with match feedback.
Related Artifactssharing capabilities
Artifacts that share capabilities with Big Code Bench, ranked by overlap. Discovered automatically through the match graph.
bigcode-models-leaderboard
bigcode-models-leaderboard — AI demo on HuggingFace
xCodeEval
Multilingual code evaluation across 17 languages.
MBPP+
Enhanced Python coding benchmark with rigorous testing.
CodeT5
Home of CodeT5: Open Code LLMs for Code Understanding and Generation
StarCoder2
Open code model trained on 600+ languages.
Gigacode – Use OpenCode's UI with Claude Code/Codex/Amp
Gigacode is an experimental, just-for-fun project that makes OpenCode's TUI + web + SDK work with Claude Code, Codex, and Amp.It's not a fork of OpenCode. Instead, it implements the OpenCode protocol and just runs `opencode attach` to the server that converts API calls to the underlying ag
Best For
- ✓ML researchers benchmarking code generation models
- ✓LLM teams evaluating model releases against industry standards
- ✓Organizations selecting between commercial and open-source code models
- ✓Researchers comparing across model families (OpenAI vs Anthropic vs open-source)
- ✓Teams running benchmarks in hybrid environments (cloud + local models)
- ✓Organizations avoiding vendor lock-in by supporting multiple providers
- ✓Researchers optimizing model sampling strategies
- ✓Teams tuning generation parameters for production deployments
Known Limitations
- ⚠Pass@k metrics require generating k samples per task, creating computational overhead (1,140 tasks × k samples)
- ⚠Test case coverage may not capture all edge cases or production-grade code quality concerns
- ⚠Metrics assume deterministic test execution; flaky tests or environment-dependent code may produce inconsistent results
- ⚠Does not measure code readability, maintainability, or adherence to style conventions
- ⚠Provider abstraction adds latency overhead for request marshaling and response normalization
- ⚠Rate limiting and quota management must be handled per-provider, complicating large-scale runs
Requirements
Input / Output
UnfragileRank
UnfragileRank is computed from adoption signals, documentation quality, ecosystem connectivity, match graph feedback, and freshness. No artifact can pay for a higher rank.
About
Comprehensive code generation benchmark with 1,140 tasks. Tests practical programming across libraries (NumPy, Pandas, Matplotlib, etc.). More realistic than HumanEval — requires library knowledge and complex implementations.
Categories
Alternatives to Big Code Bench
Are you the builder of Big Code Bench?
Claim this artifact to get a verified badge, access match analytics, see which intents users search for, and manage your listing.
Get the weekly brief
New tools, rising stars, and what's actually worth your time. No spam.
Data Sources
Looking for something else?
Search →