| 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 10 decomposed | 13 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Collects human preference judgments through a web-based Battle Mode interface where users submit identical prompts to two anonymous models and select which response is superior. The platform aggregates these pairwise comparisons across millions of user interactions to build a preference dataset that reflects real-world conversational quality expectations. This crowdsourced approach captures diverse user preferences across multiple languages and task types without requiring predefined evaluation rubrics or expert annotators.
Unique: Uses continuous crowdsourced pairwise comparisons from real users rather than static expert-annotated datasets, capturing evolving preference distributions across diverse conversational tasks and languages without requiring predefined evaluation rubrics or domain expertise from annotators
vs alternatives: Captures real-world user preferences at scale more cheaply than expert annotation while remaining more representative of actual use cases than synthetic benchmarks, though at the cost of sampling bias and preference drift
Converts pairwise battle outcomes (win/loss/tie) into Elo ratings using a chess-style rating system that produces relative model rankings. The system processes individual battle results and aggregates them to compute dynamic Elo scores that reflect each model's expected performance against others. This approach enables continuous ranking updates as new battles are collected and provides a single comparable metric across all evaluated models.
Unique: Applies chess-style Elo rating system to LLM evaluation, enabling dynamic ranking updates as new preference data arrives and providing a single comparable metric across all models without requiring predefined performance thresholds or absolute scoring rubrics
vs alternatives: Simpler and more transparent than learned preference models while capturing preference dynamics better than static win-rate metrics, though less interpretable than absolute performance scores and vulnerable to saturation when models are similar in quality
Provides a web-based Battle Mode interface where users submit prompts and receive responses from two anonymous models side-by-side without knowing which model is which. The anonymization prevents bias from brand recognition or prior expectations about model quality. Users compare the responses and select which is better, with their preference recorded and used for ranking computation.
Unique: Implements strict anonymization of model identities during comparison to eliminate brand bias and prior expectations, ensuring preference judgments reflect actual response quality rather than user preconceptions about model capabilities
vs alternatives: Produces less biased preference judgments than named model comparison while remaining more practical than blind expert evaluation, though at the cost of losing diagnostic information about which specific models are performing well or poorly
Evaluates LLM performance across diverse languages by accepting user prompts in multiple languages and collecting preference judgments on multilingual responses. The platform aggregates language-specific preference data to produce Elo ratings that reflect model quality across linguistic diversity. This approach captures how well models handle non-English tasks and whether performance varies significantly across languages.
Unique: Integrates multilingual preference collection into a single unified ranking system rather than maintaining separate language-specific leaderboards, enabling cross-language comparison while capturing language-specific performance variation through aggregated Elo ratings
vs alternatives: Provides more representative global evaluation than English-only benchmarks while remaining simpler than maintaining separate language-specific leaderboards, though at the cost of obscuring language-specific performance differences in aggregate rankings
Automatically discloses user conversations and metadata to AI model providers and makes them publicly available for research purposes. The platform explicitly states in its terms that 'Your conversations and certain other personal information will be disclosed to the relevant AI providers and may otherwise be disclosed publicly.' This enables researchers to analyze real-world conversational patterns and model responses at scale while creating a potential data contamination vector for future model training.
Unique: Implements mandatory public disclosure of all conversations by default rather than opt-in privacy protection, treating user interactions as public research data and explicitly notifying users that conversations will be disclosed to model providers and published for research
vs alternatives: Enables large-scale research on real-world LLM usage more transparently than hidden data collection, though at the cost of higher privacy risk and significant data contamination potential compared to private evaluation platforms
Maintains a publicly accessible leaderboard at https://lmarena.ai that ranks models by Elo rating and updates continuously as new battles are collected. The leaderboard provides real-time visibility into model performance rankings without requiring static benchmark re-runs. Users can search and filter models, and rankings change dynamically as preference data accumulates, enabling tracking of performance trends over time.
Unique: Implements continuous leaderboard updates based on live preference data rather than periodic benchmark re-runs, enabling real-time ranking visibility and performance trend tracking without requiring infrastructure to re-evaluate all models
vs alternatives: Provides more current rankings than static benchmarks while remaining simpler than maintaining separate evaluation pipelines, though at the cost of ranking volatility as new battles arrive and potential recency bias favoring recently-evaluated models
Executes user prompts against third-party LLM APIs (OpenAI, Anthropic, etc.) and returns responses without controlling inference parameters or model versions. The platform acts as a black-box orchestrator that sends prompts to model providers' APIs and collects responses for comparison. Users have no visibility into which model versions are being used, what temperature or sampling parameters are applied, or how responses are generated.
Unique: Orchestrates evaluation across multiple third-party LLM APIs without controlling inference parameters or model versions, treating models as black boxes and accepting whatever responses providers return with default settings
vs alternatives: Avoids infrastructure costs and complexity of hosting multiple models while remaining flexible to add new providers, though at the cost of losing reproducibility, parameter control, and visibility into model versions or provider-side changes
Evaluates models on conversational tasks submitted by real users rather than predefined synthetic benchmarks, capturing task distribution that reflects actual use cases. The platform accepts free-form user prompts across diverse domains and use cases, enabling evaluation on tasks users genuinely care about. This approach produces rankings that reflect performance on real-world conversational quality rather than artificial benchmark tasks.
Unique: Evaluates models on user-submitted real-world tasks rather than predefined synthetic benchmarks, capturing task distribution that reflects actual conversational use cases and enabling evaluation on domains users genuinely care about
vs alternatives: Produces more representative rankings for real-world use than synthetic benchmarks while remaining more scalable than expert-curated task sets, though at the cost of sampling bias and lack of control over task distribution or difficulty
+2 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 Chatbot Arena at 64/100.
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