| Ecosystem |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 12 decomposed | 8 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Captures training metrics, hyperparameters, and artifacts across any ML framework (PyTorch, TensorFlow, scikit-learn, XGBoost, etc.) through a unified SDK that intercepts logging calls and serializes them to Neptune's backend. Uses a client-side logger that batches metadata into structured JSON payloads and transmits them asynchronously to avoid blocking training loops, with automatic framework detection and adapter patterns for popular libraries.
Unique: Unified SDK with automatic framework detection and adapter patterns that work across PyTorch, TensorFlow, scikit-learn, XGBoost without requiring framework-specific wrapper code, using asynchronous batching to avoid training loop blocking
vs alternatives: More framework-agnostic than MLflow (which requires explicit logging per framework) and faster than Weights & Biases for teams using multiple frameworks due to local batching before transmission
Provides interactive dashboards that compare experiments across multiple dimensions (metrics, hyperparameters, system resources, artifacts) using a columnar data model that indexes experiments by metadata fields. Supports filtering, sorting, and custom chart generation through a web UI that queries Neptune's backend API, with support for parallel coordinates plots, scatter plots, and heatmaps to identify patterns across high-dimensional experiment spaces.
Unique: Columnar indexing of experiment metadata enables fast filtering and sorting across thousands of experiments; parallel coordinates and heatmap visualizations specifically designed for hyperparameter space exploration rather than generic charting
vs alternatives: More specialized for hyperparameter comparison than TensorBoard (which focuses on single-run metrics) and faster than Weights & Biases for comparing 100+ experiments due to local filtering before rendering
Tracks dataset versions used in experiments with automatic profiling (row counts, column statistics, data types, missing values) and lineage tracking back to data sources. Stores dataset metadata (schema, statistics, sample rows) and enables comparison of datasets across experiments to identify data drift or distribution changes. Integrates with data versioning tools (DVC, Pachyderm) to track external dataset versions.
Unique: Automatically profiles datasets (statistics, schema, sample rows) and tracks lineage back to source experiments, enabling data drift detection without requiring external data versioning tools, whereas DVC requires separate dataset version management
vs alternatives: More integrated data tracking than MLflow because it includes automatic profiling; more focused on ML workflows than generic data versioning tools like DVC because it connects datasets to model performance
Exposes a REST API and Python SDK for programmatic access to all Neptune data (experiments, metrics, artifacts, models) enabling integration with external tools and custom workflows. Supports complex queries (filtering, sorting, aggregation) on experiment metadata and metrics, and enables batch operations (tagging, archiving, deleting) across multiple experiments. API responses are JSON-formatted and support pagination for large result sets.
Unique: Provides both REST API and Python SDK with support for complex filtering and batch operations, enabling tight integration with external tools without requiring users to export data manually, whereas MLflow's API is more limited
vs alternatives: More flexible than Weights & Biases API because it supports arbitrary filtering and aggregation; more comprehensive than TensorBoard because it provides programmatic access to all experiment data
Centralized repository for trained models with semantic versioning, metadata tagging, and automatic lineage tracking that links models to their source experiments, training code, and data versions. Uses a hierarchical storage model (project → model → version) with immutable version snapshots and supports model promotion workflows (staging → production) with approval gates. Integrates with artifact storage (S3, GCS, Azure Blob) to store model binaries while maintaining metadata in Neptune's database.
Unique: Automatic lineage tracking that links models to source experiments and data versions through metadata relationships; hierarchical versioning (project → model → version) with immutable snapshots enables reproducibility and audit trails
vs alternatives: More integrated with experiment tracking than MLflow Model Registry (which requires separate logging) and supports approval workflows that Weights & Biases lacks, though less flexible than custom DVC pipelines
Enables multiple team members to view and interact with the same experiment dashboard simultaneously through WebSocket-based real-time updates and shared UI state. Uses operational transformation or CRDT patterns to merge concurrent edits (notes, tags, comparisons) without conflicts, with activity feeds showing who made changes and when. Supports commenting on specific metrics or artifacts with @mentions for async collaboration.
Unique: WebSocket-based real-time synchronization with operational transformation for conflict-free concurrent edits; activity feeds provide full audit trail of who changed what and when, enabling async collaboration across time zones
vs alternatives: More real-time than MLflow (which requires manual refresh) and more collaborative than TensorBoard (which is single-user focused); similar to Weights & Biases but with stronger audit trails
Allows teams to define custom metric schemas (e.g., per-class precision, confusion matrix, custom loss functions) and log them with automatic validation against the schema before transmission. Uses JSON Schema or similar validation framework to enforce data types, ranges, and required fields, preventing malformed data from reaching the backend. Supports nested metrics and structured artifacts (images, tables, audio) with automatic serialization and compression.
Unique: Client-side schema validation before transmission prevents malformed data from reaching backend; automatic serialization and compression of structured artifacts (images, tables, audio) with configurable compression levels
vs alternatives: More flexible than MLflow (which has fixed metric types) and more performant than Weights & Biases for high-frequency custom metrics due to client-side validation reducing round-trips
Provides a query language and UI for filtering experiments by arbitrary metadata fields (tags, hyperparameters, system metrics, custom fields) and metric ranges, with support for boolean operators and regex patterns. Implements a columnar index on frequently-queried fields (learning_rate, batch_size, accuracy) to enable sub-second filtering across thousands of experiments. Saved filters can be shared with team members and used to create dynamic dashboards.
Unique: Columnar indexing on frequently-queried fields (learning_rate, batch_size, accuracy) enables sub-second filtering; query language supports boolean operators and regex patterns with saved filter sharing across team
vs alternatives: Faster filtering than MLflow (which uses linear scans) and more expressive query language than Weights & Biases (which uses dropdown filters), though less flexible than custom SQL queries
+4 more capabilities
Evaluates LLM safety across 7 distinct categories (offensiveness, unfairness, physical health, mental health, illegal activities, ethics, privacy) using 11,435 curated multiple-choice questions available in both Chinese and English. The benchmark constructs category-specific prompts, sends them to target models, extracts predicted answers from model responses, and compares against ground-truth labels (0->A, 1->B, 2->C, 3->D) to compute accuracy metrics per category and overall safety score.
Unique: Combines 11,435 questions across 7 safety categories with explicit Chinese-English parallel coverage and a filtered subset (test_zh_subset.json) for sensitive keyword handling, enabling systematic cross-lingual safety assessment. Uses category-stratified few-shot examples (5 per category) to support both zero-shot and five-shot evaluation paradigms within a single framework.
vs alternatives: Larger and more category-diverse than single-domain safety benchmarks (e.g., ToxiGen for toxicity only), and explicitly supports Chinese alongside English, addressing a gap in multilingual safety evaluation infrastructure.
Supports two distinct evaluation paradigms: zero-shot (questions presented directly without examples) and five-shot (5 category-specific examples provided before each test question). The framework conditionally constructs prompts using dev_en.json/dev_zh.json few-shot examples or omits them entirely, allowing researchers to measure how in-context learning affects safety performance. Prompt templates are language-aware and can be customized per model to improve answer extraction accuracy.
Unique: Provides curated few-shot examples stratified by safety category (5 per category) rather than random sampling, ensuring balanced representation of each harm type. Prompt templates are explicitly customizable per model (e.g., evaluate_baichuan.py shows Baichuan-specific extraction logic), acknowledging that different architectures require different prompting strategies.
More systematic than ad-hoc few-shot selection; category-stratified examples ensure consistent coverage of all safety dimensions rather than potentially biased random sampling.
SafetyBench Eval scores higher at 63/100 vs Neptune at 56/100. Neptune leads on quality, while SafetyBench Eval is stronger on ecosystem.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
Manages parallel Chinese and English datasets (test_en.json, test_zh.json, dev_en.json, dev_zh.json) with a filtered Chinese subset (test_zh_subset.json, 300 questions per category) for sensitive keyword handling. Data acquisition uses Hugging Face hosting with dual download methods (shell script download_data.sh or Python download_data.py with datasets library). Each question maintains consistent structure (id, category, question, options, answer) across languages, enabling direct cross-lingual comparison of model safety performance.
Unique: Provides both full Chinese dataset (test_zh.json) and a filtered subset (test_zh_subset.json with 300 questions per category) explicitly designed to avoid sensitive keywords, addressing practical concerns about evaluating on content that may trigger platform policies. Dual download methods (shell script and Python) reduce friction for different user workflows.
vs alternatives: More comprehensive multilingual coverage than English-only benchmarks; filtered subset is a pragmatic addition for teams needing to evaluate without policy violations.
Computes accuracy metrics per safety category (offensiveness, unfairness, physical health, mental health, illegal activities, ethics, privacy) and aggregates to an overall safety score. Supports standardized leaderboard submission via JSON format (question_id -> predicted_answer). Metrics are computed by comparing predicted answers (extracted from model responses) against ground-truth labels, enabling fine-grained analysis of which safety dimensions a model excels or fails on. Results can be submitted to llmbench.ai/safety leaderboard for public comparison.
Unique: Stratifies metrics across 7 explicit safety categories rather than computing a single aggregate score, enabling fine-grained diagnosis of safety weaknesses. Leaderboard integration (llmbench.ai/safety) provides public benchmarking infrastructure, creating accountability and enabling direct model comparison.
vs alternatives: Category-level metrics provide more actionable insights than single-number safety scores; leaderboard integration drives standardization and reproducibility across the research community.
Implements a standardized evaluation pipeline (exemplified in evaluate_baichuan.py) that constructs prompts, sends them to a target model via API or local inference, extracts predicted answers from model responses using model-specific parsing logic, and validates extracted answers against expected format (0->A, 1->B, 2->C, 3->D). The pipeline handles model-specific response formats and can be customized per model architecture. Supports batch evaluation of all 11,435 questions with error handling and logging.
Unique: Provides a concrete, model-specific evaluation implementation (evaluate_baichuan.py) that can be forked and adapted, rather than just a dataset. Acknowledges that different models require different answer extraction logic and provides a template for customization. Supports both zero-shot and few-shot evaluation within the same pipeline.
vs alternatives: More practical than dataset-only benchmarks because it includes reference evaluation code; reduces barrier to entry for teams without evaluation infrastructure.
Defines a structured taxonomy of 7 safety categories (offensiveness, unfairness, physical health, mental health, illegal activities, ethics, privacy) and curates 11,435 diverse multiple-choice questions mapped to these categories. Each question is designed to test whether a model correctly handles or refuses harmful content within that category. The taxonomy is explicit and mutually exclusive, enabling fine-grained safety analysis. Questions are curated to be challenging and representative of real-world safety concerns.
Unique: Explicitly defines 7 non-overlapping safety categories and curates 11,435 questions to cover them systematically, providing a structured taxonomy rather than ad-hoc safety testing. The taxonomy is comprehensive enough to cover major harm types (physical, mental, legal, ethical, privacy) while remaining tractable for evaluation.
vs alternatives: More comprehensive and structured than single-category benchmarks (e.g., toxicity-only); provides a holistic safety assessment framework that aligns with regulatory and safety research perspectives.
Provides two download methods for SafetyBench datasets: shell script (download_data.sh) and Python script (download_data.py using Hugging Face datasets library). The architecture leverages Hugging Face Hub for dataset hosting and distribution, enabling one-command dataset acquisition with automatic decompression and directory structure creation. The Python method uses the datasets library for programmatic access, supporting integration into automated evaluation pipelines without manual file management.
Unique: Provides dual download methods (shell script and Python) leveraging Hugging Face Hub for distribution, enabling both manual and programmatic dataset acquisition with automatic decompression and directory structure creation.
vs alternatives: More convenient than manual downloads by providing automated acquisition scripts, and more reproducible than email-based dataset distribution by using Hugging Face Hub as a stable, versioned repository
Computes accuracy metrics stratified by safety category, enabling per-dimension performance analysis. The evaluation pipeline aggregates predictions across all questions in each category (offensiveness, unfairness, physical health, mental health, illegal activities, ethics, privacy) and computes category-specific accuracy scores. This architecture enables identification of category-specific vulnerabilities (e.g., a model may be robust on ethics but weak on physical health) without requiring separate evaluation runs.
Unique: Automatically stratifies accuracy metrics by safety category, enabling fine-grained vulnerability analysis without requiring separate evaluation runs. Provides per-category scores that reveal category-specific weaknesses.
vs alternatives: More diagnostic than aggregate safety scores by breaking down performance by harm category, enabling targeted safety improvements rather than black-box optimization