great-expectations vs TaskWeaver
Side-by-side comparison to help you choose.
| Feature | great-expectations | TaskWeaver |
|---|---|---|
| Type | Repository | Agent |
| UnfragileRank | 28/100 | 45/100 |
| Adoption | 0 | 1 |
| Quality | 0 | 0 |
| Ecosystem |
| 1 |
| 1 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 11 decomposed | 14 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Enables developers to write data quality tests as Python code using an Expectation-based DSL that encodes business logic and data contracts. Tests are expressed declaratively (e.g., 'column X must be non-null', 'values in column Y must be between 0-100') and compiled into executable validation rules that can be versioned, shared, and integrated into CI/CD pipelines. The framework abstracts away the complexity of implementing custom validation logic by providing a library of pre-built Expectation types covering common data quality patterns.
Unique: Uses an Expectation-based DSL that separates test definition from execution, allowing tests to be stored as configuration (JSON/YAML) and executed against multiple data sources without code changes. This is distinct from imperative validation frameworks that require custom code per data source.
vs alternatives: More flexible and maintainable than hand-written SQL validation queries because tests are source-agnostic and can be applied to Pandas, Spark, SQL databases, and cloud data warehouses with identical syntax.
Provides a Checkpoint abstraction that bundles multiple Expectations and executes them at defined stages in a data pipeline (development, pre-downstream, production). Checkpoints can be triggered manually, on-schedule, or integrated into orchestration tools (Airflow, dbt, Prefect) to validate data at ingestion, transformation, and output stages. Results are collected and can trigger alerts, block downstream processing, or log to monitoring systems. The framework supports conditional validation logic and parameterized Expectations to adapt tests to different data contexts.
Unique: Checkpoint abstraction decouples test definition from execution context, allowing the same Expectation Suite to be validated at multiple pipeline stages with different data subsets. Supports parameterized Expectations that adapt to runtime context (e.g., different thresholds for dev vs. production).
vs alternatives: More integrated than point-solution data quality tools because Checkpoints are designed to be embedded in orchestration code (Airflow operators, dbt tests) rather than requiring a separate validation platform.
Great Expectations provides a framework for developing custom Expectations that extend the built-in library with domain-specific validation logic. Custom Expectations are implemented as Python classes that inherit from base Expectation classes and implement validation logic, rendering logic, and metadata. The framework handles execution, result collection, and integration with the standard validation pipeline. Custom Expectations can be packaged as plugins and shared across teams or published to the community. The framework supports custom Expectation validation, documentation generation, and testing utilities.
Unique: Provides a structured framework for implementing custom Expectations as Python classes with built-in support for validation, rendering, and metadata. Custom Expectations integrate seamlessly with the standard validation pipeline and can be packaged as plugins.
vs alternatives: More extensible than closed validation platforms because custom Expectations can implement arbitrary validation logic and integrate with third-party libraries.
Provides an AI-assisted test generation feature (ExpectAI) that analyzes sample data and automatically generates Expectation Suites reflecting observed data patterns and statistical properties. The system infers constraints on column types, value ranges, null rates, and distributions, then suggests Expectations that encode these patterns. Generated tests can be reviewed, edited, and committed to version control. This reduces manual effort in bootstrapping data quality tests for new data sources or tables.
Unique: Uses AI/ML to infer data quality rules from statistical analysis of sample data, generating Expectations that encode observed patterns. This is distinct from rule-based systems that require explicit configuration of validation logic.
vs alternatives: Faster than manual Expectation authoring for large numbers of tables, but requires human review to ensure generated tests align with business logic rather than just statistical patterns.
Executes Expectations and produces structured validation results (JSON/YAML) containing pass/fail status, failure counts, and diagnostic metadata for each Expectation. Results are aggregated into Validation Reports that can be rendered as HTML Data Docs—human-readable documentation showing data quality metrics, test results, and data lineage. Data Docs are versioned and can be hosted on static web servers or integrated into data catalogs. Results can also be exported to monitoring systems, data warehouses, or custom dashboards for real-time quality tracking.
Unique: Generates both machine-readable (JSON) and human-readable (HTML Data Docs) validation results from the same Expectation execution, enabling both automated alerting and stakeholder communication without separate reporting tools.
vs alternatives: More integrated than exporting raw validation results to BI tools because Data Docs provide context (Expectation descriptions, failure examples, historical trends) alongside metrics.
Abstracts data source connectivity through a connector pattern, enabling Expectations to be executed against multiple data sources (SQL databases, Pandas DataFrames, Spark, Snowflake, BigQuery, Redshift, etc.) without changing test code. Connectors handle data fetching, query translation, and result collection. The framework supports both batch validation (full table scans) and sampling-based validation for large datasets. Connectors are extensible; custom connectors can be implemented for proprietary data systems.
Unique: Uses a connector abstraction layer that translates Expectations into data-source-specific queries (SQL, Spark SQL, etc.), enabling test portability across heterogeneous systems. Connectors handle dialect differences and optimization strategies per data source.
vs alternatives: More flexible than data source-specific validation tools because the same Expectation Suite can be executed against Pandas, Spark, Snowflake, and BigQuery without rewriting tests.
GX Cloud provides a fully-managed SaaS platform that eliminates the need to self-host and manage Great Expectations infrastructure. The platform includes a web-based UI for test authoring, a managed validation execution engine, result storage, and Data Docs hosting. Teams can set up validation in minutes without deploying Python code or managing databases. GX Cloud includes features like ExpectAI, real-time monitoring dashboards, team collaboration tools, and integrations with data orchestration platforms. Pricing tiers (Developer free, Team, Enterprise) support different team sizes and feature sets.
Unique: Provides a fully-managed SaaS alternative to self-hosted Great Expectations, with web-based UI, managed execution, and built-in features (ExpectAI, dashboards, team collaboration) that eliminate infrastructure management. Pricing tiers support different team sizes and use cases.
vs alternatives: Faster to deploy than self-hosted GX Core for teams without DevOps resources, but less flexible and more expensive at scale compared to open-source self-hosted option.
Expectation Suites are stored as JSON/YAML configuration files that can be versioned in Git, enabling data quality tests to be treated as code. Suites are decoupled from specific data sources, allowing the same suite to be executed against different tables or databases without modification. Configuration management supports parameterization (e.g., table name, column names, thresholds) enabling test reuse across similar datasets. Suites can be organized hierarchically and shared across teams. The framework supports suite validation, merging, and conflict resolution for collaborative workflows.
Unique: Expectation Suites are stored as declarative configuration (JSON/YAML) that can be versioned in Git and executed against multiple data sources without code changes. Parameterization enables test reuse across similar datasets with different table/column names or thresholds.
vs alternatives: More maintainable than imperative validation code because test definitions are declarative and can be reviewed, versioned, and reused without custom code per data source.
+3 more capabilities
Transforms natural language user requests into executable Python code snippets through a Planner role that decomposes tasks into sub-steps. The Planner uses LLM prompts (planner_prompt.yaml) to generate structured code rather than text-only plans, maintaining awareness of available plugins and code execution history. This approach preserves both chat history and code execution state (including in-memory DataFrames) across multiple interactions, enabling stateful multi-turn task orchestration.
Unique: Unlike traditional agent frameworks that only track text chat history, TaskWeaver's Planner preserves both chat history AND code execution history including in-memory data structures (DataFrames, variables), enabling true stateful multi-turn orchestration. The code-first approach treats Python as the primary communication medium rather than natural language, allowing complex data structures to be manipulated directly without serialization.
vs alternatives: Outperforms LangChain/LlamaIndex for data analytics because it maintains execution state across turns (not just context windows) and generates code that operates on live Python objects rather than string representations, reducing serialization overhead and enabling richer data manipulation.
Implements a role-based architecture where specialized agents (Planner, CodeInterpreter, External Roles like WebExplorer) communicate exclusively through the Planner as a central hub. Each role has a specific responsibility: the Planner orchestrates, CodeInterpreter generates/executes Python code, and External Roles handle domain-specific tasks. Communication flows through a message-passing system that ensures controlled conversation flow and prevents direct agent-to-agent coupling.
Unique: TaskWeaver enforces hub-and-spoke communication topology where all inter-agent communication flows through the Planner, preventing agent coupling and enabling centralized control. This differs from frameworks like AutoGen that allow direct agent-to-agent communication, trading flexibility for auditability and controlled coordination.
TaskWeaver scores higher at 45/100 vs great-expectations at 28/100.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
vs alternatives: More maintainable than AutoGen for large agent systems because the Planner hub prevents agent interdependencies and makes the interaction graph explicit; easier to add/remove roles without cascading changes to other agents.
Provides comprehensive logging and tracing of agent execution, including LLM prompts/responses, code generation, execution results, and inter-role communication. Tracing is implemented via an event emitter system (event_emitter.py) that captures execution events at each stage. Logs can be exported for debugging, auditing, and performance analysis. Integration with observability platforms (e.g., OpenTelemetry) is supported for production monitoring.
Unique: TaskWeaver's event emitter system captures execution events at each stage (LLM calls, code generation, execution, role communication), enabling comprehensive tracing of the entire agent workflow. This is more detailed than frameworks that only log final results.
vs alternatives: More comprehensive than LangChain's logging because it captures inter-role communication and execution history, not just LLM interactions; enables deeper debugging and auditing of multi-agent workflows.
Externalizes agent configuration (LLM provider, plugins, roles, execution limits) into YAML files, enabling users to customize behavior without code changes. The configuration system includes validation to ensure required settings are present and correct (e.g., API keys, plugin paths). Configuration is loaded at startup and can be reloaded without restarting the agent. Supports environment variable substitution for sensitive values (API keys).
Unique: TaskWeaver's configuration system externalizes all agent customization (LLM provider, plugins, roles, execution limits) into YAML, enabling non-developers to configure agents without touching code. This is more accessible than frameworks requiring Python configuration.
vs alternatives: More user-friendly than LangChain's programmatic configuration because YAML is simpler for non-developers; easier to manage configurations across environments without code duplication.
Provides tools for evaluating agent performance on benchmark tasks and testing agent behavior. The evaluation framework includes pre-built datasets (e.g., data analytics tasks) and metrics for measuring success (task completion, code correctness, execution time). Testing utilities enable unit testing of individual components (Planner, CodeInterpreter, plugins) and integration testing of full workflows. Results are aggregated and reported for comparison across LLM providers or agent configurations.
Unique: TaskWeaver includes built-in evaluation framework with pre-built datasets and metrics for data analytics tasks, enabling users to benchmark agent performance without building custom evaluation infrastructure. This is more complete than frameworks that only provide testing utilities.
vs alternatives: More comprehensive than LangChain's testing tools because it includes pre-built evaluation datasets and aggregated reporting; easier to benchmark agent performance without custom evaluation code.
Provides utilities for parsing, validating, and manipulating JSON data throughout the agent workflow. JSON is used for inter-role communication (messages), plugin definitions, configuration, and execution results. The JSON processing layer handles serialization/deserialization of Python objects (DataFrames, custom types) to/from JSON, with support for custom encoders/decoders. Validation ensures JSON conforms to expected schemas.
Unique: TaskWeaver's JSON processing layer handles serialization of Python objects (DataFrames, variables) for inter-role communication, enabling complex data structures to be passed between agents without manual conversion. This is more seamless than frameworks requiring explicit JSON conversion.
vs alternatives: More convenient than manual JSON handling because it provides automatic serialization of Python objects; reduces boilerplate code for inter-role communication in multi-agent workflows.
The CodeInterpreter role generates executable Python code based on task requirements and executes it in an isolated runtime environment. Code generation is LLM-driven and context-aware, with access to plugin definitions that wrap custom algorithms as callable functions. The Code Execution Service sandboxes execution, captures output/errors, and returns results back to the Planner. Plugins are defined via YAML configs that specify function signatures, enabling the LLM to generate correct function calls.
Unique: TaskWeaver's CodeInterpreter maintains execution state across code generations within a session, allowing subsequent code snippets to reference variables and DataFrames from previous executions. This is implemented via a persistent Python kernel (not spawning new processes per execution), unlike stateless code execution services that require explicit state passing.
vs alternatives: More efficient than E2B or Replit's code execution APIs for multi-step workflows because it reuses a single Python kernel with preserved state, avoiding the overhead of process spawning and state serialization between steps.
Extends TaskWeaver's functionality by wrapping custom algorithms and tools into callable functions via a plugin architecture. Plugins are defined declaratively in YAML configs that specify function names, parameters, return types, and descriptions. The plugin system registers these definitions with the CodeInterpreter, enabling the LLM to generate correct function calls with proper argument passing. Plugins can wrap Python functions, external APIs, or domain-specific tools (e.g., data validation, ML model inference).
Unique: TaskWeaver's plugin system uses declarative YAML configs to define function signatures, enabling the LLM to generate correct function calls without runtime introspection. This is more explicit than frameworks like LangChain that use Python decorators, making plugin capabilities discoverable and auditable without executing code.
vs alternatives: Simpler to extend than LangChain's tool system because plugins are defined declaratively (YAML) rather than requiring Python code and decorators; easier for non-developers to add new capabilities by editing config files.
+6 more capabilities