| 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 14 decomposed | 13 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Executes 50+ pre-built evaluation metrics (Ragas-based and custom) against LLM outputs without requiring metric implementation. Metrics include RagasAnswerCorrectness, RagasContextPrecision, RagasContextRelevancy, RagasContextRecall, RagasFaithfulness, ResponseFaithfulness, Groundedness, ContextSufficiency, DoesResponseAnswerQuery, ContextContainsEnoughInformation, and Faithfulness. Integrates with external LLM providers (OpenAI confirmed) to compute metric scores in parallel batches with configurable concurrency (max_parallel_evals parameter).
Unique: Bundles 50+ pre-built evaluation metrics (Ragas-based) with parallel execution orchestration and external LLM provider integration, eliminating the need for teams to implement or maintain metric code. Uses EvalRunner.run_suite() abstraction to handle batch scheduling, result aggregation, and concurrent evaluation across configurable worker pools.
vs alternatives: Faster than implementing custom metrics from scratch and more comprehensive than single-metric tools like LangSmith's basic evals, but less flexible than frameworks like Ragas directly because metric logic is opaque and non-customizable.
Allows teams to define custom evaluation metrics beyond the 50+ presets by implementing metric logic that integrates with the EvalRunner orchestration system. Custom metrics are stored in Athina's platform and versioned alongside datasets and prompts. Implementation approach unknown but likely supports Python function definitions or declarative metric schemas that hook into the parallel evaluation pipeline.
Unique: unknown — insufficient data on custom metric implementation, API surface, and integration with the EvalRunner orchestration system. Documentation does not specify whether custom metrics are Python functions, declarative schemas, or another abstraction.
vs alternatives: unknown — without clarity on implementation approach, cannot position against alternatives like Ragas custom metrics or LangSmith's custom evaluators.
Integrates with external LLM providers (OpenAI confirmed, others unknown) to execute evaluations and run AI workflows. Manages API keys securely via AthinaApiKey.set_key() and OpenAiApiKey.set_key() methods. Abstracts provider-specific API differences, allowing teams to swap models without changing evaluation code. Handles API rate limiting, retries, and error handling transparently.
Unique: Abstracts LLM provider APIs behind a unified interface (AthinaApiKey.set_key(), OpenAiApiKey.set_key()), allowing evaluation code to remain provider-agnostic. Handles provider-specific differences (API format, rate limits, error codes) transparently.
vs alternatives: Simpler than managing provider APIs directly, but less flexible than frameworks like LiteLLM that support 100+ providers and offer fine-grained control over retry logic and rate limiting.
Provides loaders (athina.loaders.Loader) to import evaluation datasets from various sources (CSV, JSON, API, pre-built datasets like yc_query_mini) and transform them into Athina's internal format. Loaders handle schema mapping, data validation, and format conversion. Pre-built datasets are available for quick prototyping. Supports programmatic dataset construction via Python tuples or objects.
Unique: Provides both pre-built datasets (yc_query_mini) for quick prototyping and flexible loaders for custom datasets, reducing setup friction. Abstracts schema mapping and format conversion, allowing teams to focus on evaluation rather than data preparation.
vs alternatives: More convenient than manual dataset preparation (e.g., writing custom CSV parsing code), but less flexible than general-purpose ETL tools like Pandas or Polars because loader capabilities are limited to Athina's supported formats.
Maintains a complete history of evaluation runs, including metadata (timestamp, user, configuration), input datasets, metrics, and results. Each run is linked to specific prompt versions, model selections, and retriever configurations, creating an audit trail. Teams can retrieve past runs, compare results, and reproduce evaluations. Likely uses a database to store run metadata and results with queryable indexes.
Unique: Links evaluation runs to specific prompt versions, model selections, and retriever configurations, creating a complete audit trail of what was evaluated and how. Enables reproduction of past evaluations and comparison of results over time.
vs alternatives: More integrated than manual run tracking (e.g., spreadsheets or notebooks) because run metadata is automatically captured and linked to configurations, but less flexible than custom logging solutions because query and export options are unknown.
Aggregates metric scores across evaluation samples and computes statistical summaries (mean, standard deviation, percentiles, min/max). Supports filtering and grouping by dimensions (e.g., by sample type, query length, retriever). Likely uses NumPy or similar for efficient computation. Enables teams to understand metric distributions and identify outliers.
Unique: Automatically computes statistical summaries and supports grouping by custom dimensions, enabling teams to understand metric distributions without manual analysis. Likely integrates with visualization to surface insights.
vs alternatives: More convenient than manual statistical analysis (e.g., using Pandas), but less flexible than general-purpose statistical tools because aggregation functions and grouping options are likely limited to pre-defined sets.
Manages evaluation datasets with versioning, annotation, and SQL-based querying capabilities. Datasets are stored in Athina's platform with version history, enabling teams to track changes and regenerate datasets by modifying model, prompt, or retriever configurations. Includes pre-built datasets (e.g., yc_query_mini) and loaders for importing external data. Supports side-by-side dataset comparison with SQL query interface for data scientists.
Unique: Integrates dataset versioning with regeneration capabilities — teams can modify model/prompt/retriever configurations and automatically regenerate datasets to measure impact, creating a feedback loop between evaluation and dataset evolution. SQL query interface enables data scientists to explore datasets without leaving the platform.
vs alternatives: More integrated than external dataset management tools (e.g., DVC, Weights & Biases) because dataset versioning is tied directly to evaluation runs and model configurations, but less flexible because datasets are locked into Athina's proprietary format with no export option.
Orchestrates batch evaluation runs across multiple metrics and dataset samples using parallel execution with configurable concurrency (max_parallel_evals parameter). EvalRunner.run_suite() method accepts a list of evaluation metrics, a dataset, and concurrency settings, then distributes evaluation work across worker threads/processes. Results are aggregated and returned as structured evaluation reports. Handles API rate limiting and error handling for external LLM provider calls.
Unique: Abstracts parallel evaluation orchestration into a single EvalRunner.run_suite() call, handling worker scheduling, result aggregation, and external API coordination. Configurable concurrency (max_parallel_evals) allows teams to balance throughput against API rate limits without manual thread management.
vs alternatives: Simpler than building custom evaluation pipelines with concurrent.futures or Ray, but less flexible because parallelization strategy is opaque and non-configurable beyond the concurrency parameter.
+6 more capabilities
Provides a standardized evaluation framework for code generation models that accepts generated code in 17 programming languages (C, C++, C#, Java, Kotlin, Go, Rust, Python, Ruby, PHP, JavaScript, Perl, Haskell, OCaml, Scala, D, Pascal) and validates correctness through actual execution against unit tests via the ExecEval Docker-based execution engine. Uses a centralized problem definition model with src_uid foreign keys linking generated code to shared problem descriptions and unittest_db.json, enabling consistent evaluation across language variants of the same problem.
Unique: Combines 25M training examples across 7,500 unique problems with an execution-based evaluation pipeline (ExecEval) that actually runs generated code in Docker containers against unit tests, rather than relying on static analysis or string matching. The src_uid linking system creates a normalized data model where problem descriptions and tests are stored once and referenced by all language variants, eliminating duplication and ensuring consistency.
vs alternatives: Larger scale (25M examples vs typical 10-100K) and true execution-based validation across more languages (17 vs 4-6) than HumanEval or CodeXGLUE, with explicit support for code translation and repair tasks beyond generation.
Implements a foreign key linking system where all task-specific datasets (program synthesis, code translation, APR, retrieval) reference shared problem definitions via src_uid identifiers. Problem descriptions and unit tests are stored once in centralized problem_descriptions.jsonl and unittest_db.json files, then linked by src_uid to avoid duplication. The Hugging Face datasets API automatically resolves these links during data loading, returning enriched DatasetDict objects with problem context pre-joined to task examples.
Unique: Uses a normalized relational data model (src_uid as foreign key) for a code benchmark, treating problem definitions as a separate entity layer rather than embedding them in each task dataset. This is more sophisticated than typical flat-file benchmark structures and enables consistent multi-task evaluation on identical problems.
xCodeEval scores higher at 67/100 vs Athina AI at 57/100.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
vs alternatives: More efficient than duplicating problem descriptions across 7 task datasets (reduces storage by ~30-40%), and enables automatic link resolution via Hugging Face API unlike manual CSV joins in CodeXGLUE or HumanEval variants.
Provides a Python API for loading xCodeEval datasets from Hugging Face Hub (NTU-NLP-sg/xCodeEval) with automatic src_uid-based linking between task datasets and shared problem definitions. The datasets library handles data downloading, caching, and streaming, while the xCodeEval integration automatically joins task examples with problem_descriptions.jsonl and unittest_db.json using src_uid foreign keys. Returns DatasetDict objects with enriched examples ready for model training or evaluation.
Unique: Integrates xCodeEval with Hugging Face datasets library, providing automatic src_uid resolution and streaming support. Treats data loading as a first-class concern with built-in linking logic, rather than requiring manual JSON parsing.
vs alternatives: More convenient than manual Git LFS downloads because it handles caching and automatic linking, and integrates seamlessly with Hugging Face training pipelines vs custom data loaders.
Provides an alternative data access method using Git LFS for users who prefer direct file access or need selective dataset downloads. Supports cloning the repository with LFS disabled, then pulling specific task files or problem definitions on demand. Useful for custom processing pipelines or environments where Python/Hugging Face is not available, though requires manual src_uid linking to join task examples with problem definitions.
Unique: Provides Git LFS-based alternative to Hugging Face API, enabling direct file access and selective downloads. Requires manual src_uid linking but offers more control over data access patterns.
vs alternatives: More flexible than Hugging Face API for selective downloads and custom pipelines, but requires more manual work for src_uid linking and lacks automatic caching/streaming.
Implements a standardized three-phase evaluation pipeline (Phase 1: Generation, Phase 2: Execution, Phase 3: Metrics) that applies consistently across all 7 tasks (program synthesis, code translation, APR, tag classification, code compilation, NL-code retrieval, code-code retrieval). Phase 1 generates or retrieves code, Phase 2 executes it via ExecEval or computes retrieval metrics, and Phase 3 aggregates results into pass@k, MRR, NDCG, or other task-specific metrics. Enables direct comparison of model performance across tasks.
Unique: Defines a unified three-phase evaluation pipeline that applies to all 7 tasks, treating generation, execution, and metric computation as separate concerns. Enables consistent evaluation methodology across diverse task types (generation, translation, retrieval, classification).
vs alternatives: More comprehensive than task-specific evaluation scripts because it provides a unified framework for all 7 tasks, and enables direct comparison of model performance across different task types.
Evaluates code generation models on the program synthesis task by accepting natural language problem descriptions and generating code solutions in any of 17 languages. The evaluation pipeline (Phase 1: Generation, Phase 2: Execution, Phase 3: Metrics) runs generated code against unit tests via ExecEval, computing pass@k metrics (pass@1, pass@10, etc.) that measure the probability of finding a correct solution within k samples. Supports both single-solution and multi-sample evaluation modes for assessing model reliability.
Unique: Implements a three-phase evaluation pipeline (Generation → Execution → Metrics) with explicit pass@k computation that measures the probability of finding a correct solution within k attempts, rather than just binary pass/fail. Supports multi-sample evaluation across 17 languages with language-specific compiler configurations and timeout handling.
vs alternatives: More rigorous than HumanEval's simple pass@k because it handles language-specific compilation errors and timeouts explicitly, and scales to 25M training examples vs HumanEval's 164 problems.
Evaluates code translation models by accepting source code in one language and generated translations in a target language, then validating functional equivalence through execution against shared unit tests. The translation evaluation pipeline compiles and executes both source and translated code against the same unittest_db.json test cases, comparing outputs to detect translation errors. Supports all 17 language pairs (though not all pairs may have training data) and uses language-specific compiler mappings to handle syntax differences.
Unique: Validates code translation by executing both source and target code against identical unit tests and comparing outputs, ensuring functional equivalence rather than syntactic similarity. Uses language-specific compiler mappings to handle the complexity of 17 different compilation environments and their idiosyncrasies.
vs alternatives: More rigorous than BLEU-score-based translation metrics because it validates actual functional correctness through execution, and covers more language pairs (17 vs typical 2-4) with explicit compiler integration.
Evaluates program repair models by providing buggy code snippets and expecting corrected versions that pass unit tests. The APR evaluation pipeline executes repaired code against unittest_db.json test cases, measuring whether the repair successfully fixes the bug without introducing new failures. Supports repairs across all 17 languages and uses the same execution-based validation as program synthesis, enabling direct comparison of repair quality.
Unique: Treats program repair as an executable task where success is measured by unit test passage, rather than syntactic similarity to reference repairs. Integrates with the same ExecEval pipeline as program synthesis, enabling direct performance comparison between generation and repair models.
vs alternatives: More comprehensive than traditional APR benchmarks (Defects4J, QuixBugs) because it covers 17 languages and 7,500 problems vs 395 Java bugs, and uses consistent execution-based metrics across all repair types.
+5 more capabilities