| 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 11 decomposed | 13 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Generates coherent text across extended contexts up to 128K tokens using a standard transformer architecture optimized for efficient attention computation. Unlike typical 4K-32K context models, Phi-3.5 Mini achieves this extended window through training on synthetic data specifically designed to leverage long-range dependencies, enabling document-level understanding and multi-turn conversations without context truncation. The model processes input through standard transformer layers with optimized attention patterns to maintain inference speed despite the large context size.
Unique: Achieves 128K context window in a 3.8B parameter model through synthetic training data specifically designed for long-range dependencies, significantly larger than typical SLM context windows (4K-32K) while maintaining edge-deployable size
vs alternatives: Offers 4-32x larger context than comparable 3-7B models (Mistral 7B: 32K, Llama 3.2 1B: 8K) while remaining small enough for mobile deployment, bridging the gap between lightweight models and context-heavy applications
Processes and generates text across multiple languages through a shared transformer embedding space trained on high-quality synthetic and filtered multilingual data. The model learns language-agnostic representations that enable cross-lingual understanding and generation without language-specific branches or adapters. Specific supported languages are not documented, but the training data composition suggests coverage of major languages with emphasis on high-quality sources rather than broad web crawl.
Unique: Achieves multilingual capability in a 3.8B model through shared embedding space trained on high-quality synthetic data rather than broad web crawl, prioritizing quality over coverage and enabling efficient cross-lingual understanding without language-specific components
vs alternatives: Smaller multilingual footprint than Llama 3.2 (1B-11B with separate language variants) or mBERT (110M but encoder-only), enabling single-model deployment across languages on resource-constrained devices
Demonstrates quantified performance on Massive Multitask Language Understanding (MMLU) benchmark with 69% accuracy, validating reasoning and knowledge capabilities across diverse domains. The model is evaluated on reasoning benchmarks (specific benchmarks not named) with claimed competitive results. Benchmark scores provide objective performance metrics for comparison with other models and validation of capability claims. However, comprehensive benchmark suite coverage is limited; only MMLU explicitly reported.
Unique: Achieves 69% MMLU in 3.8B parameters through synthetic training data optimization, providing quantified reasoning performance that enables direct comparison with larger models and objective capability validation
vs alternatives: Provides explicit MMLU benchmark score (vs. many SLMs that lack published benchmarks) enabling informed model selection; 69% is competitive for 3.8B parameter class despite significant gap vs. 7B+ models
Performs logical reasoning and multi-step problem decomposition through transformer-based chain-of-thought patterns learned during training on synthetic reasoning datasets. The model generates intermediate reasoning steps before final answers, enabling performance on benchmarks like MMLU (69%) and other reasoning tasks. The approach relies on learned patterns from training data rather than explicit reasoning algorithms, with performance constrained by the 3.8B parameter budget.
Unique: Achieves 69% MMLU reasoning performance in a 3.8B model through synthetic training data specifically designed for reasoning patterns, significantly outperforming typical SLMs on reasoning benchmarks despite extreme parameter efficiency
vs alternatives: Delivers reasoning capability in 3.8B parameters (vs. Mistral 7B, Llama 3.2 1B which don't emphasize reasoning) while remaining mobile-deployable, trading some accuracy for extreme efficiency and edge compatibility
Deploys across heterogeneous hardware (iOS, Android, browsers, edge devices) through dual format support: ONNX (Open Neural Network Exchange) for cross-platform inference optimization and GGUF (quantized format) for efficient local inference. The model is pre-converted to these formats, eliminating custom conversion steps. ONNX enables hardware-specific optimizations (CPU, GPU, NPU) while GGUF provides quantized variants for memory-constrained devices. Both formats support offline inference without cloud connectivity.
Unique: Provides pre-optimized ONNX and GGUF formats specifically for cross-platform edge deployment, eliminating custom conversion and quantization work while supporting iOS, Android, and browser targets simultaneously from a single model artifact
vs alternatives: Broader deployment target coverage than Llama 2 (primarily GGUF) or Mistral (primarily ONNX), with official support for mobile platforms and browsers enabling true offline-first applications without cloud fallback
Achieves competitive performance on reasoning and language understanding benchmarks through training on curated high-quality synthetic data and filtered web data rather than raw web crawl. The training pipeline emphasizes data quality over quantity, using synthetic data generation and filtering heuristics to remove low-quality, toxic, or irrelevant content. This approach trades dataset size for signal quality, enabling strong performance in a small parameter budget. Specific filtering criteria, synthetic data generation methods, and data composition percentages are not documented.
Unique: Achieves 69% MMLU and competitive reasoning performance in 3.8B parameters through explicit focus on training data quality (synthetic + filtered) rather than scale, demonstrating that data curation can partially offset parameter count disadvantages
vs alternatives: Prioritizes data quality over dataset size (vs. Llama 3.2 trained on broader web data), reducing bias and toxicity at the cost of potentially narrower knowledge coverage; enables stronger performance on benchmark tasks despite smaller size
Provides cloud-hosted inference through Azure's managed API endpoint with consumption-based billing (pay-per-token or pay-per-request). The model is deployed on Microsoft's infrastructure with automatic scaling, eliminating infrastructure management. Integration occurs through standard REST/HTTP APIs compatible with OpenAI API format or Azure-specific SDKs. Inference is processed server-side with results returned asynchronously or synchronously depending on endpoint configuration. No explicit rate limiting, quota, or SLA documentation provided.
Unique: Integrates with Azure's managed inference platform with OpenAI API compatibility, enabling drop-in replacement for OpenAI endpoints while leveraging Microsoft's infrastructure and billing integration
vs alternatives: Simpler operational overhead than self-hosted inference (no GPU provisioning, scaling, or monitoring) while maintaining cost efficiency vs. GPT-3.5 API for budget-constrained applications
Provides free access to Phi-3.5 Mini through Microsoft Foundry platform for real-time deployment and experimentation. The Foundry platform abstracts infrastructure management, offering pre-configured deployment templates and monitoring dashboards. Free tier enables developers to test the model without Azure credits or payment setup. Specific free tier quotas, rate limits, and feature restrictions are not documented.
Unique: Offers free tier access through Microsoft Foundry platform specifically for Phi models, eliminating cost barriers for experimentation and evaluation without requiring Azure credits or payment setup
vs alternatives: Lower barrier to entry than Azure MaaS (no payment required) while providing managed infrastructure; similar to Hugging Face free tier but with Microsoft's infrastructure backing and tighter integration with Azure ecosystem
+3 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 Phi-3.5 Mini 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