| 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 11 decomposed | 13 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Evaluates AI models' ability to edit existing codebases by accepting natural language instructions and measuring whether generated edits pass functional test cases across 6+ programming languages (C++, Go, Java, JavaScript, Python, Rust). Uses Exercism platform exercises as test cases, executing generated code against test suites to determine pass/fail outcomes. Tracks both syntactic correctness (well-formed edit format) and functional correctness (test case passage) as distinct metrics.
Unique: Combines syntactic correctness tracking (well-formed edit format) with functional correctness (test case passage) as separate metrics, revealing models that produce valid syntax but fail logic. Includes cost-per-case measurement across diverse LLM providers (OpenAI, Anthropic, Gemini, GROQ, xAI, Cohere, DeepSeek, Ollama, etc.), enabling cost-efficiency analysis. Tracks specific error categories (syntax, indentation, context exhaustion, timeouts, lazy comments) rather than aggregate failure rates.
vs alternatives: Broader language coverage (6+ languages) and cost transparency than most code generation benchmarks; however, uses public Exercism data with unmitigated contamination risk, whereas alternatives like HumanEval or MBPP use held-out test sets with documented decontamination procedures.
Validates and parses AI-generated code edits in unified diff format, checking structural correctness before functional testing. Measures the percentage of responses that conform to expected diff syntax (line numbers, context lines, additions/deletions). Rejects malformed edits and categorizes formatting errors (indentation, syntax violations) separately from logic errors.
Unique: Separates format correctness (91.6% for gpt-5 high) from functional correctness (88.0% pass rate), revealing that 3.6% of syntactically valid edits fail test cases. Categorizes specific formatting errors (indentation, syntax, context window exhaustion) rather than lumping all malformed outputs together.
vs alternatives: More granular error reporting than simple pass/fail metrics; however, requires models to output diff format specifically, whereas some alternatives accept multiple edit representations.
Tracks and reports metadata for each benchmark evaluation: Aider version (0.86.2.dev), commit hash (e.g., 32faf82, 5318380), and test date (2025-06-28 to 2025-08-25). Metadata enables reproducibility verification and tracking of evaluation environment changes over time. Leaderboard includes metadata for each result.
Unique: Includes Aider version and commit hash in leaderboard results, enabling reproducibility verification. However, metadata is minimal and does not include LLM provider versions, hardware specifications, or random seed information.
vs alternatives: More transparent than benchmarks that omit evaluation metadata; however, less comprehensive than benchmarks like HELM that track detailed environment specifications, random seeds, and infrastructure details.
Executes generated code edits against language-specific test suites (from Exercism exercises) and measures functional correctness by running test cases in sandboxed environments. Tracks pass/fail outcomes, timeout behavior, and context window exhaustion. Supports execution in C++, Go, Java, JavaScript, Python, and Rust with language-specific toolchains and test runners.
Unique: Tracks execution-level failures separately from format failures, revealing resource constraints (context window exhaustion: 0 for gpt-5 high, timeouts: 3). Measures both 'Pass rate 1' (undefined methodology) and 'Pass rate 2' (88.0% for gpt-5 high), suggesting multi-stage evaluation, though methodology is opaque.
vs alternatives: Supports 6 languages with actual test execution, whereas many code generation benchmarks (HumanEval, MBPP) only validate Python; however, lacks documentation on execution environment, timeout thresholds, and resource limits.
Measures and reports the monetary cost of evaluating each test case for each LLM provider, enabling cost-efficiency analysis. Aggregates per-case costs across 225 exercises to produce total evaluation cost. Includes cost data in leaderboard rankings alongside performance metrics, allowing direct comparison of cost-performance tradeoffs (e.g., gpt-5 medium at $17.69 vs. o3-pro at $146.32).
Unique: Includes transparent cost-per-case measurement in leaderboard rankings, enabling direct cost-performance analysis. Reveals that gpt-5 (medium) achieves 86.7% pass rate at $17.69 (cost-efficient) while o3-pro (high) achieves 84.9% at $146.32 (8x more expensive for lower performance), a comparison unavailable in other benchmarks.
vs alternatives: Unique among code generation benchmarks in reporting API costs alongside performance metrics; however, cost data is snapshot-based and may not reflect current pricing or token usage patterns.
Integrates with 12+ LLM providers (OpenAI, Anthropic, Gemini, GROQ, LM Studio, xAI, Azure, Cohere, DeepSeek, Ollama, OpenRouter, GitHub Copilot, Vertex AI, Amazon Bedrock) via Aider CLI, enabling evaluation of diverse models on the same benchmark. Supports configurable reasoning effort levels (high, medium) per model. Leaderboard aggregates results across providers, allowing direct performance comparison.
Unique: Supports 12+ LLM providers with unified evaluation interface, enabling direct comparison across proprietary (OpenAI, Anthropic, Gemini) and open-source (DeepSeek, Ollama) models. Configurable reasoning effort levels (high, medium) allow cost-performance tradeoff analysis within and across providers.
vs alternatives: Broader provider support than most benchmarks; however, no standardization of reasoning effort semantics across providers, and self-hosted options (Ollama, LM Studio) lack hardware standardization.
Maintains a public leaderboard (https://aider.chat/docs/leaderboards) ranking models by code editing performance, cost, and well-formedness metrics. Leaderboard includes metadata (test date, Aider version, commit hash, reasoning effort level) enabling reproducibility tracking. Updates with new model evaluations over time (data from 2025-06-28 to 2025-08-25 visible in current leaderboard).
Unique: Includes cost-per-case metrics in leaderboard rankings alongside performance, enabling cost-efficiency analysis. Tracks specific error categories (syntax, indentation, timeouts, context exhaustion, lazy comments) rather than aggregate failure rates. Metadata includes Aider version and commit hash for reproducibility.
vs alternatives: More transparent cost reporting than most benchmarks; however, lacks historical trend data, statistical significance testing, and documented submission process compared to established benchmarks like HELM or BigCodeBench.
Categorizes code generation failures into specific error types: syntax errors, indentation errors, context window exhaustion, test timeouts, and lazy comments (incomplete implementations). Reports error counts per model, enabling diagnostic analysis of failure modes. Distinguishes between format errors (malformed diff output) and functional errors (test case failures).
Unique: Separates format errors (malformed diff output) from functional errors (test failures) and further categorizes functional errors by type (syntax, indentation, timeout, context exhaustion, lazy comments). Reveals that gpt-5 high produces 0 syntax/indentation errors but 3 timeouts and 3 lazy comments, indicating resource constraints rather than capability gaps.
vs alternatives: More granular error reporting than simple pass/fail metrics; however, error categories are coarse-grained and lack language-specific or exercise-type stratification.
+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 Aider Polyglot at 65/100.
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