| 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 15 decomposed | 13 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Generates syntactically correct, functional code across 15+ programming languages (Python, C++, Java, PHP, TypeScript, C#, Bash, etc.) from natural language descriptions. Uses a transformer-based decoder architecture trained on 1 trillion tokens of code data, enabling the model to learn language-specific idioms, standard library patterns, and common implementation approaches. The 100K context window allows the model to reference existing codebases and generate contextually appropriate solutions that align with project conventions.
Unique: Trained on 1 trillion tokens of code data (10x more than typical LLMs) with explicit multi-language support across 15+ languages, enabling stronger cross-language idiom understanding than general-purpose models. The 100K context window (vs. 4-8K in most alternatives) enables repository-level code understanding and generation that respects project-wide patterns.
vs alternatives: Outperforms GPT-3.5 and open-source alternatives on HumanEval (67.8%) and MBPP benchmarks due to code-specific pretraining, while remaining fully open-source and free for commercial use unlike Copilot or Claude.
Completes code by predicting missing tokens in the middle of a code snippet, enabling inline code completion workflows where developers write code before and after a gap. Uses a bidirectional attention mechanism trained on code infilling tasks, allowing the model to condition on both prefix (code before the gap) and suffix (code after the gap) context. This approach is more accurate than left-to-right completion alone because it can infer intent from downstream code.
Unique: Implements bidirectional infilling using a specialized training objective that conditions on both prefix and suffix context, enabling more accurate mid-code completion than left-to-right models. This is a rare capability in open-source models; most alternatives (including GPT-3.5) only support left-to-right completion.
vs alternatives: Provides more accurate inline code completion than Copilot's left-to-right approach on code with clear suffix context, while remaining open-source and deployable locally without cloud API calls.
Compatible with multiple inference frameworks (vLLM, llama.cpp, Ollama, LM Studio, etc.), enabling flexible deployment options and ecosystem integration. The model uses standard transformer architecture and can be exported to multiple formats (GGUF, safetensors, etc.), allowing developers to choose the inference framework that best fits their performance, latency, and resource requirements.
Unique: Compatible with multiple inference frameworks and quantization formats, enabling developers to choose the framework that best fits their performance, latency, and resource requirements. This flexibility is a key advantage over proprietary models locked into specific inference stacks.
vs alternatives: Provides deployment flexibility across multiple inference frameworks and optimization techniques, enabling better performance tuning than proprietary alternatives locked into specific inference stacks.
Model weights can be quantized to lower precision formats (int8, int4, GGUF, etc.) to reduce memory requirements and inference latency, enabling deployment on resource-constrained hardware. Quantization trades off model quality for reduced computational requirements, allowing smaller GPUs or CPUs to run the model. Multiple quantization schemes are supported through different inference frameworks.
Unique: Supports quantization to multiple precision formats through different inference frameworks, enabling deployment on resource-constrained hardware. Quantization support is standard for open-source models but not available for proprietary alternatives like Copilot.
vs alternatives: Enables cost-effective deployment on consumer GPUs or CPU-only hardware through quantization, whereas proprietary alternatives require expensive cloud infrastructure or high-end GPUs.
Distributed under the Llama 2 community license, which explicitly permits free commercial use without licensing fees, royalties, or usage restrictions. The license provides legal clarity for organizations using CodeLlama in production systems or commercial products. This is a significant advantage over proprietary models that require commercial licenses or prohibit commercial use.
Unique: Explicitly licensed for free commercial use under Llama 2 community license, providing legal clarity and eliminating licensing costs for commercial deployments. This is a key differentiator from proprietary alternatives that require commercial licenses or prohibit commercial use.
vs alternatives: Eliminates licensing costs and legal uncertainty for commercial code generation use cases compared to proprietary alternatives like Copilot (subscription-based) or Claude (usage-based pricing).
Generates code that integrates with external APIs and libraries by understanding API documentation patterns and common usage examples. The model learns API patterns from training data and generates correct, idiomatic code for API calls, error handling, and data transformation. Supports popular libraries and frameworks (Django, Flask, NumPy, Pandas, requests, etc.) with proper error handling and best practices.
Unique: Learns API patterns and library conventions from training data, enabling generation of idiomatic integration code without external API documentation. Supports multiple popular libraries and frameworks with proper error handling.
vs alternatives: Generates more complete integration code than code snippets from documentation, including error handling and best practices, while remaining fully open-source and customizable for organization-specific API patterns.
Suggests and generates refactored code to improve structure, readability, and maintainability while preserving functionality. The model learns refactoring patterns (extract method, rename variable, consolidate conditionals, etc.) from training data and applies them to modernize legacy code. Analyzes code to identify refactoring opportunities and generates improved versions with explanations.
Unique: Applies semantic refactoring patterns learned from training data, enabling context-aware improvements that preserve functionality and intent. Suggests refactorings that improve both code quality and maintainability.
vs alternatives: Provides refactoring suggestions beyond what IDE tools offer by understanding code semantics and suggesting architectural improvements, while remaining fully open-source and customizable for organization-specific patterns.
A variant of CodeLlama 70B fine-tuned specifically on Python code, optimized for generating idiomatic Python solutions with strong understanding of Python standard library, popular frameworks (Django, FastAPI, NumPy, Pandas), and Python-specific patterns (list comprehensions, decorators, context managers). The specialization involves additional training on Python-heavy datasets after the base code pretraining, allowing the model to prioritize Python idioms and best practices.
Unique: Dedicated model variant fine-tuned exclusively on Python code after base code pretraining, enabling deeper understanding of Python idioms, standard library patterns, and popular frameworks compared to general-purpose code models. This specialization approach is rare; most competitors offer single models for all languages.
vs alternatives: Generates more idiomatic Python code than general-purpose CodeLlama 70B or GPT-3.5 due to Python-specific fine-tuning, while remaining open-source and free for commercial use.
+7 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 CodeLlama 70B at 59/100.
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