| 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 12 decomposed | 13 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Operates a distributed web crawler (CCBot) that systematically traverses 3-5 billion web pages monthly, capturing raw HTML, metadata, and response headers into WARC (Web ARChive) format files stored on AWS S3. The crawl respects robots.txt directives and maintains an opt-out registry for content exclusion. Each monthly snapshot is immutable and indexed for retrieval, creating a cumulative archive of 300+ billion pages spanning 15+ years of web history.
Unique: Operates the largest open web crawl archive with 300+ billion pages spanning 15+ years, maintained as a non-profit public good with monthly refresh cycles and dual indexing (CDXJ + columnar) for both URL-based and structured queries. No commercial competitor maintains equivalent historical depth and scale.
vs alternatives: Larger, older, and more freely accessible than commercial web archives (Wayback Machine, Archive.org) with explicit support for ML training pipelines and no rate-limiting for research use.
Provides CDXJ (Capture inDeX JSON) indices that map URLs to byte offsets within WARC files, enabling direct random access to specific pages without scanning entire archives. Queries specify a URL and optional date range, returning matching captures with metadata (HTTP status, content type, timestamp). This index layer abstracts away WARC file complexity and enables efficient lookup of historical versions of individual pages.
Unique: Uses CDXJ standard (JSON-based capture index) rather than proprietary indexing, enabling interoperability with other web archive tools and allowing byte-offset-based random access to WARC files without full-file decompression. Supports both exact and wildcard URL matching.
vs alternatives: More efficient than sequential WARC scanning for URL lookups and more standardized than Wayback Machine's custom index format, enabling third-party tool integration.
Publishes infrastructure status updates, known issues, and errata for crawls through a public status page and mailing list. Issues are documented with affected crawls, impact assessment, and workarounds. Status monitoring includes S3 availability, index health, and crawl progress. Errata tracking enables users to identify and work around data quality issues in specific crawls.
Unique: Maintains public errata tracking and status monitoring for crawls, enabling users to identify and work around data quality issues. Combines status page, mailing list, and documentation for transparency.
vs alternatives: More transparent than proprietary data sources; public errata tracking enables community awareness of issues, whereas most competitors provide no visibility into data quality problems.
Operates a distributed web crawler (CCBot) that can be configured with custom crawl parameters including politeness delays, user-agent strings, robots.txt interpretation, and domain-specific crawl budgets. The crawler respects HTTP standards and robots.txt directives, with configurable behavior for handling redirects, timeouts, and errors. Crawl parameters are documented for each monthly release, enabling reproducibility and evaluation of crawl quality.
Unique: Publishes crawl parameters and methodology for each monthly release, enabling reproducibility and evaluation of crawl quality. Crawler respects HTTP standards and robots.txt, with documented politeness policies.
vs alternatives: More transparent about crawl methodology than proprietary crawlers; published parameters enable reproducibility and comparison with other crawling approaches.
Provides columnar indices (format and query syntax unspecified in documentation) that enable structured queries across archive metadata without parsing WARC files. Queries can filter by domain, content-type, HTTP status, crawl date, and other fields, returning matching page metadata and offsets. This approach trades random-access flexibility for efficient bulk filtering and aggregation across billions of pages.
Unique: Uses columnar storage (likely Parquet or similar) for metadata indices, enabling efficient filtering and aggregation across billions of pages without decompressing WARC files. Supports multi-field queries and bulk statistics generation.
vs alternatives: More efficient than CDXJ for bulk filtering and aggregation queries; enables data engineers to pre-filter before WARC parsing, reducing downstream processing costs.
Extracts hyperlink relationships from crawled pages to construct a directed web graph showing which pages link to which other pages. This graph data is provided separately from raw page content, enabling analysis of link structure, PageRank-like metrics, and domain authority without parsing HTML. The extraction process identifies both internal (same-domain) and external (cross-domain) links.
Unique: Extracts hyperlink graph from petabyte-scale web crawl, providing researchers with a snapshot of global web topology at monthly intervals. Graph data is separated from content, enabling efficient analysis without parsing HTML.
vs alternatives: Larger and more recent than academic web graph datasets (e.g., WebGraph, SNAP); freely available and updated monthly, whereas most academic graphs are static or years old.
Enables retrieval of any page version from the cumulative 300+ billion page archive spanning 2007-present, with monthly granularity. Users specify a URL and date range, and the system returns all captures of that page from matching crawls. This creates a time-series view of how individual pages evolved, including content changes, design updates, and deletion/resurrection events.
Unique: Maintains 15+ years of monthly web snapshots (300+ billion pages cumulative), enabling fine-grained temporal analysis of web content evolution. No commercial competitor offers equivalent historical depth at this scale.
vs alternatives: Larger and more comprehensive than Internet Archive's Wayback Machine for bulk historical analysis; free and designed for programmatic access rather than interactive browsing.
Exports raw web content in WARC (Web ARChive) format, a standardized container that bundles HTTP request/response pairs with metadata. Each WARC record includes the original HTTP status code, headers, response body (HTML, JSON, binary), and crawl metadata (timestamp, IP address, user-agent). WARC files are gzip-compressed and stored on S3, with indices enabling random access to specific records without decompressing entire files.
Unique: Uses WARC standard format (ISO 28500) rather than proprietary encoding, ensuring long-term preservation and interoperability with other archival tools. Stores on AWS S3 with public access, enabling direct programmatic access without intermediary APIs.
vs alternatives: More standardized and preservation-friendly than custom formats; larger and more recent than academic web corpora; free and designed for large-scale processing rather than interactive access.
+4 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 Common Crawl at 60/100.
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