| 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 11 decomposed | 13 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Evaluates 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.
Unique: 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
vs alternatives: More representative of real-world code generation demands than HumanEval because it emphasizes library API knowledge and complex multi-step implementations across practical domains
Provides 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.
Unique: 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
vs alternatives: Reduces benchmark maintenance burden compared to maintaining separate evaluation pipelines per provider, enabling fair cross-provider comparison with identical prompts and execution
Supports 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.
Unique: 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
vs alternatives: More flexible than fixed-parameter benchmarks because it enables model-specific tuning and cost-quality analysis, though requires more compute for comprehensive parameter exploration
Executes 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.
Unique: 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
vs alternatives: More flexible than single-backend solutions because it supports both local development (fast iteration) and production-grade remote sandboxing (strong isolation) without code changes
Pre-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.
Unique: 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
vs alternatives: More precise than regex-based sanitization because AST parsing understands Python syntax structure, reducing false positives while catching actual syntax errors
Manages 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.
Unique: 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
vs alternatives: 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
Aggregates 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.
Unique: 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
vs alternatives: More statistically rigorous than simple pass-rate metrics because pass@k accounts for sampling variance and provides confidence estimates across different sample budgets
Exposes 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.
Unique: 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
vs alternatives: More flexible than monolithic evaluation scripts because modular commands enable partial re-runs and custom pipeline construction, reducing iteration time during development
+3 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 Big Code Bench at 65/100.
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