xCodeEval ranks higher at 67/100 vs MMLU (Massive Multitask Language Understanding) at 63/100. Capability-level comparison backed by match graph evidence from real search data.
| Feature | MMLU (Massive Multitask Language Understanding) | xCodeEval |
|---|---|---|
| Type | Benchmark | Benchmark |
| UnfragileRank | 63/100 | 67/100 |
| Adoption | 1 | 1 |
| Quality | 1 | 1 |
| Ecosystem | 0 | 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 6 decomposed | 13 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Evaluates LLM knowledge breadth and depth across 57 distinct academic subjects (mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, history, law, medicine, engineering, philosophy, etc.) using 15,908 curated multiple-choice questions. The dataset stratifies questions by difficulty level from elementary to professional certification exams, enabling fine-grained assessment of model performance across knowledge domains and cognitive complexity tiers. Scoring is deterministic (exact match on selected choice) and comparable across models.
Unique: Combines breadth (57 subjects) with depth (difficulty stratification from elementary to professional certification level) in a single unified benchmark, with 15,908 questions curated from real academic and professional exams rather than synthetic generation. The subject taxonomy spans STEM, humanities, and professional domains in a way that no single-domain benchmark achieves.
vs alternatives: More comprehensive and domain-balanced than HellaSwag (entertainment focus) or ARC (science-only), and more standardized than ad-hoc evaluation sets because it's widely adopted as the de facto metric for comparing frontier LLMs in published research.
Segments the 15,908 questions into difficulty tiers (elementary, high school, college, professional) enabling builders to measure whether a model's knowledge is shallow pattern-matching or deep understanding. Each question is tagged with difficulty metadata, allowing disaggregated scoring that reveals performance cliffs — e.g., a model may score 85% on high school questions but only 40% on professional-level law or medicine questions. This stratification exposes whether improvements are broad-based or concentrated in easier domains.
Unique: Explicitly tags questions with difficulty levels derived from real academic curricula (elementary through professional certification), enabling builders to measure reasoning depth rather than just aggregate knowledge. Most benchmarks report a single score; MMLU's stratification reveals whether improvements are broad or concentrated in easy questions.
vs alternatives: Provides finer-grained difficulty analysis than GSM8K (math-only) or TruthfulQA (single-domain), and the difficulty labels are grounded in real educational standards rather than arbitrary heuristics.
Organizes 15,908 questions into 57 distinct subject categories (mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, history, law, medicine, engineering, philosophy, economics, etc.), enabling builders to generate per-subject accuracy profiles. Each question is tagged with its subject, allowing disaggregated scoring that reveals domain-specific strengths and weaknesses. A model might score 90% on STEM subjects but only 60% on humanities, or vice versa. This enables targeted evaluation for domain-specific applications.
Unique: Covers 57 distinct subjects spanning STEM, humanities, social sciences, and professional domains in a single benchmark, providing comprehensive domain coverage that no single-subject benchmark achieves. Subject taxonomy is derived from real academic curricula and professional certification exams.
vs alternatives: Broader subject coverage than domain-specific benchmarks (e.g., MedQA for medicine only) while maintaining standardization across all subjects, enabling both broad knowledge assessment and targeted domain evaluation in one dataset.
Provides a canonical, widely-adopted benchmark for comparing LLM capabilities across the industry. MMLU is the single most reported metric in LLM research papers and model cards, enabling builders to position their models against published baselines (GPT-4, Claude, Llama, etc.). Scoring is deterministic and reproducible: exact match on multiple-choice selection. The dataset is fixed and versioned, ensuring that comparisons across papers and time periods are valid. Leaderboards and published results enable quick competitive analysis.
Unique: De facto industry standard for LLM evaluation, with results published in virtually every major LLM research paper and model card since 2021. Canonical dataset version ensures reproducibility across papers and time periods, unlike ad-hoc evaluation sets that vary between researchers.
vs alternatives: More widely adopted and cited than competing benchmarks (ARC, HellaSwag, TruthfulQA), making it the single most reliable metric for comparing published LLM capabilities and positioning new models in the competitive landscape.
Provides a fixed, versioned dataset of 15,908 questions that doesn't change between evaluation runs, enabling reproducible and comparable results across different models, teams, and time periods. The dataset is immutable and publicly available on Hugging Face, ensuring that any builder can download the exact same questions and verify published results. This eliminates variance from question generation, sampling, or dataset drift that would occur with dynamic benchmarks.
Unique: Immutable, versioned dataset published on Hugging Face ensures that any builder can download and evaluate against the exact same 15,908 questions used in published research. No question generation variance, sampling randomness, or dataset drift between evaluation runs.
vs alternatives: More reproducible than dynamically-generated benchmarks or evaluation sets that vary between researchers; enables verification of published results and fair comparison across models and time periods.
Includes questions sourced from or aligned with real professional certification exams (law bar exams, medical licensing exams, engineering professional exams, etc.), enabling evaluation of whether LLMs can perform at professional-grade levels. Questions are tagged with difficulty levels that correspond to actual exam difficulty, and some questions are directly sourced from published exam materials. This grounds the benchmark in real-world professional standards rather than synthetic or academic-only questions.
Unique: Includes questions sourced from or aligned with real professional certification exams (law bar, medical licensing, engineering professional exams), grounding the benchmark in actual professional standards rather than purely academic questions. Professional-level questions are explicitly tagged and stratified.
vs alternatives: More professionally-grounded than purely academic benchmarks (e.g., SQuAD, which focuses on reading comprehension) while maintaining breadth across multiple professional domains in a single dataset.
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 MMLU (Massive Multitask Language Understanding) at 63/100.
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