| Ecosystem | 0 | 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Paid | Free |
| Capabilities | 5 decomposed | 9 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Maintains a continuously updated leaderboard that ranks LLM models across multiple expert-designed benchmark tasks. The system ingests evaluation results from Scale's proprietary evaluation pipeline, applies standardized scoring methodologies across diverse task categories (reasoning, coding, instruction-following, safety), and dynamically re-ranks models as new evaluation data arrives. Rankings are computed using weighted aggregation of task-specific scores with transparent methodology documentation.
Unique: Scale's leaderboard combines expert-designed benchmark tasks with continuous evaluation infrastructure, enabling real-time ranking updates as new model versions release — rather than static benchmark snapshots. The evaluation pipeline integrates human-in-the-loop quality assurance to validate benchmark task quality and prevent gaming through prompt-specific optimization.
vs alternatives: More frequently updated and expert-curated than academic benchmarks (MMLU, HumanEval) which update quarterly; provides broader task coverage than single-domain benchmarks but with less transparency than open-source alternatives like LMSys Chatbot Arena
Provides an interactive filtering and sorting interface that allows users to slice leaderboard data across multiple dimensions: model provider (OpenAI, Anthropic, Meta, etc.), model size/type (base vs instruction-tuned), benchmark category (reasoning, coding, instruction-following), and performance metrics (absolute score, improvement over baseline, cost-efficiency). The interface supports side-by-side comparison of selected models with detailed breakdowns of task-specific performance.
Unique: Implements a multi-faceted filtering system that allows simultaneous filtering across provider, model type, benchmark category, and performance metrics — enabling rapid narrowing of model selection space. The comparison interface supports dynamic metric selection, allowing users to choose which performance dimensions to emphasize in side-by-side views.
vs alternatives: More granular filtering than HuggingFace Model Hub (which filters primarily by task type) and more interactive than static benchmark papers; enables real-time exploration vs batch-generated comparison reports
Provides detailed documentation of each benchmark task included in the leaderboard, including task description, evaluation methodology, scoring rubric, example inputs/outputs, and the rationale for task inclusion. Documentation is accessible via the leaderboard interface and explains how models are evaluated on each task, what constitutes a correct answer, and how partial credit is awarded. This enables users to understand what capabilities each benchmark actually measures.
Unique: Provides expert-curated documentation of benchmark design rationale and evaluation methodology, moving beyond simple task descriptions to explain why each task was included and what real-world capability it maps to. Documentation includes explicit discussion of known limitations and potential gaming vectors.
vs alternatives: More transparent than proprietary benchmarks (like OpenAI's internal evals) but less detailed than academic papers describing benchmark design; provides accessibility for non-researchers while maintaining scientific rigor
Tracks model performance over time as new model versions are released and re-evaluated, maintaining historical snapshots of leaderboard rankings and task-specific scores. The system enables visualization of performance trends, showing how a model's capabilities have improved (or degraded) across benchmark versions. Users can view performance trajectories for individual models or compare how different models' capabilities have evolved relative to each other.
Unique: Maintains continuous historical snapshots of leaderboard rankings and task-specific performance, enabling temporal analysis of model capability evolution. The system tracks not just final scores but also intermediate benchmark results, allowing analysis of which specific task categories drove performance improvements in new model versions.
vs alternatives: Provides longitudinal performance tracking that static benchmarks cannot offer; enables trend analysis similar to academic model scaling papers but with real-time updates and interactive exploration
Computes and displays cost-efficiency metrics that correlate model performance with inference costs (cost-per-token, cost-per-inference, cost-per-task-completion). The system enables filtering and sorting by efficiency metrics, helping users identify models that deliver strong performance within budget constraints. Guidance includes recommendations for cost-optimal model selection based on specific performance thresholds and budget parameters.
Unique: Integrates published pricing data with benchmark performance scores to compute cost-efficiency metrics, enabling direct comparison of cost-performance trade-offs. The system provides filtering and recommendation capabilities that help users identify optimal models within budget constraints, rather than just ranking by performance alone.
vs alternatives: Combines performance and cost data in a single interface, whereas most benchmarks focus only on performance; provides more actionable guidance than academic papers that ignore deployment costs
Executes SQL queries against Supabase PostgreSQL instances through the Model Context Protocol, translating natural language or structured query requests into parameterized SQL statements. Uses MCP's tool-calling interface to expose database operations as callable functions with schema validation, enabling LLM agents to perform CRUD operations, joins, and aggregations with automatic connection pooling and credential management through Supabase client SDK.
Unique: Exposes Supabase PostgreSQL as MCP tools with automatic credential injection from Supabase client SDK, eliminating manual connection string management and enabling seamless LLM-to-database queries within Claude or compatible agents
vs alternatives: Tighter integration than generic SQL MCP servers because it leverages Supabase's built-in authentication and connection pooling rather than requiring separate database credential configuration
Exposes Supabase Auth session state and user metadata through MCP tools, allowing agents to inspect current authentication context, retrieve user profiles, and trigger auth-related operations. Integrates with Supabase's JWT-based auth system to validate sessions and access user claims without re-authenticating, using the Supabase client's built-in session management.
Unique: Integrates Supabase's JWT-based auth system directly into MCP tool interface, allowing agents to inspect and act on auth state without managing separate credential stores or re-authentication flows
vs alternatives: More seamless than generic auth MCP servers because it leverages Supabase's built-in session management and avoids redundant credential passing between agent and auth system
Invokes Supabase Edge Functions (serverless TypeScript/JavaScript functions) through MCP tools, passing parameters and receiving results with optional streaming support. Uses Supabase's edge function HTTP API to trigger functions with automatic authentication headers and response parsing, enabling agents to execute custom business logic without embedding it in the agent itself.
Supabase scores higher at 42/100 vs SEAL LLM Leaderboard at 16/100. Supabase also has a free tier, making it more accessible.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
Unique: Exposes Supabase Edge Functions as MCP tools with automatic authentication and response parsing, allowing agents to invoke custom serverless logic without managing HTTP clients or credential injection
vs alternatives: More integrated than generic HTTP MCP tools because it handles Supabase-specific authentication, error handling, and response formatting automatically
Subscribes to real-time changes on Supabase tables through MCP's event streaming interface, using Supabase's PostgreSQL LISTEN/NOTIFY mechanism to push INSERT, UPDATE, and DELETE events to agents. Maintains persistent WebSocket connections and filters events by table and row-level policies, enabling agents to react to database changes without polling.
Unique: Bridges Supabase's PostgreSQL LISTEN/NOTIFY real-time system with MCP's tool interface, enabling agents to subscribe to database changes without managing WebSocket connections or event serialization
vs alternatives: More efficient than polling-based approaches because it uses Supabase's native real-time infrastructure rather than repeated database queries
Manages files in Supabase Storage buckets through MCP tools, supporting upload, download, list, and delete operations with automatic authentication and path-based access control. Uses Supabase's S3-compatible storage API with built-in support for public/private buckets and signed URLs for temporary access, enabling agents to handle file I/O without managing cloud storage credentials.
Unique: Exposes Supabase Storage's S3-compatible API as MCP tools with automatic authentication and signed URL generation, eliminating the need for agents to manage cloud storage credentials or generate temporary access tokens
vs alternatives: More integrated than generic S3 MCP tools because it leverages Supabase's built-in bucket policies and authentication rather than requiring separate AWS credentials
Performs semantic similarity searches on vector embeddings stored in Supabase PostgreSQL using pgvector extension, translating natural language queries into embedding vectors and executing cosine/L2 distance searches. Integrates with embedding providers (OpenAI, Cohere) or uses pre-computed embeddings, enabling agents to retrieve semantically similar documents or records without full-text search limitations.
Unique: Integrates pgvector directly into MCP tools with automatic embedding generation and distance calculation, enabling agents to perform semantic search without managing separate vector database infrastructure
vs alternatives: More efficient than external vector databases (Pinecone, Weaviate) for Supabase users because it colocates embeddings with relational data, reducing network latency and simplifying data synchronization
Exposes Supabase database schema information through MCP tools, allowing agents to discover table structures, column types, constraints, and relationships without manual schema documentation. Queries PostgreSQL information_schema and Supabase metadata tables to dynamically generate schema descriptions, enabling agents to construct valid queries and understand data relationships.
Unique: Queries Supabase's PostgreSQL information_schema directly through MCP tools, enabling agents to dynamically discover and adapt to database schemas without pre-configured schema definitions
vs alternatives: More flexible than static schema definitions because it reflects live database state, including recent migrations or schema changes
Enforces Supabase Row-Level Security policies within agent queries, ensuring that agents can only access rows permitted by RLS rules defined in the database. Evaluates policies based on authenticated user context (JWT claims, user ID) and applies WHERE clause filters automatically, preventing unauthorized data access at the database layer rather than application layer.
Unique: Delegates authorization enforcement to PostgreSQL RLS policies rather than implementing authorization in agent code, ensuring that data access rules are centralized and cannot be bypassed by agent logic
vs alternatives: More secure than application-level authorization because RLS is enforced at the database layer, preventing accidental data leaks even if agent code has bugs
+1 more capabilities