| 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 13 decomposed | 13 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Ingests execution traces from external LLM applications (models, prompts, functions, context, datasets) and reconstructs multi-turn agent workflows to surface failure modes, tool selection success rates, and cost breakdowns per interaction. Uses a proprietary trace schema to correlate model outputs with downstream function calls and context usage, enabling post-hoc debugging without code instrumentation.
Unique: Reconstructs multi-turn agent workflows from ingested traces without requiring code-level instrumentation, using a proprietary trace schema that correlates model outputs with downstream function calls and context usage to surface hidden failure patterns
vs alternatives: Deeper than LangSmith's trace visualization because it correlates tool selection success rates with model outputs across turns, enabling root-cause analysis of agent failures without manual log inspection
Provides 20+ out-of-the-box evaluators optimized for RAG, agents, safety, and security use cases. Each metric is implemented as a distilled Luna model (proprietary LLM-as-judge variant) that runs at 97% lower cost than full GPT-4o evaluation while maintaining comparable accuracy. Metrics are applied to evaluation datasets in batch mode and scored against ground truth or reference outputs.
Unique: Distills LLM-as-judge evaluators into proprietary Luna models that run at 97% lower cost than GPT-4o while maintaining accuracy, enabling cost-effective batch evaluation of large datasets without sacrificing metric quality
vs alternatives: Cheaper than running GPT-4o as a judge (claimed 97% cost reduction) while offering domain-specific metrics pre-tuned for RAG and agents, unlike generic evaluation frameworks that require custom metric implementation
Integrates with Model Context Protocol (MCP) servers to ingest context and tool definitions from external systems. Enables Galileo to evaluate LLM applications that use MCP-compatible tools and context sources, allowing evaluation of agent behavior with real-world tool integrations.
Unique: Integrates with MCP servers to evaluate LLM agents with real-world tool interactions, enabling evaluation of agent behavior with actual tool definitions and context sources rather than mocks
vs alternatives: Enables evaluation with real MCP tools rather than requiring mocking or stubbing; supports standardized tool integration via MCP protocol
Integrates with NVIDIA NeMo Guardrails via 'Galileo Protect' to enforce guardrails in production. Galileo evaluations (hallucination detection, safety checks) feed into NeMo Guardrails to block or flag unsafe outputs. Enables production deployment of evaluation-driven safety policies without custom guardrail logic.
Unique: Integrates Galileo evaluations directly with NVIDIA NeMo Guardrails to enforce production safety policies, enabling evaluation-driven guardrail enforcement without custom safety logic
vs alternatives: Provides pre-built integration with NeMo Guardrails, eliminating need for custom guardrail implementation; enables production safety enforcement using Galileo's evaluation metrics
Tracks evaluation metrics over time and automatically detects regressions (quality drops) in model outputs. Compares current metric values against historical baselines and alerts when metrics fall below configured thresholds. Supports trend visualization and statistical significance testing to distinguish real regressions from noise.
Unique: Automatically detects quality regressions by comparing current metrics against historical baselines with statistical significance testing, enabling early warning of degradation without manual threshold tuning
vs alternatives: More proactive than manual quality checks because regressions are detected automatically; more accurate than simple threshold-based alerts because statistical significance testing distinguishes real regressions from noise
Allows users to define custom evaluation metrics via a framework (implementation details unknown) and automatically tunes metric thresholds based on live production feedback. The platform ingests production traces, correlates metric scores with actual user outcomes or business KPIs, and adjusts metric parameters to improve precision/recall without manual retraining.
Unique: Implements automatic metric threshold tuning from production feedback without requiring manual retraining, using proprietary auto-tuning logic that correlates metric scores with business outcomes to improve precision/recall over time
vs alternatives: Enables continuous metric refinement from production data, unlike static evaluation frameworks that require manual threshold adjustment; reduces need for domain experts to hand-tune metrics
Detects when LLM outputs contain factually incorrect or unsupported claims using Luna-based evaluators that analyze output against provided context or ground truth. Integrates with NVIDIA NeMo Guardrails via 'Galileo Protect' to enforce guardrails in production, blocking or flagging hallucinated outputs before they reach users.
Unique: Uses distilled Luna models to detect hallucinations at 97% lower cost than GPT-4o evaluation, with production integration via NVIDIA NeMo Guardrails to enforce guardrails in real-time without requiring custom safety logic
vs alternatives: Cheaper and more integrated than building custom hallucination detection with GPT-4o; provides production-ready guardrail enforcement via NeMo Guardrails rather than requiring separate safety framework
Enables creation and management of evaluation datasets from multiple sources: synthetic data (generated by LLMs), development data (from internal testing), and production data (from live traces). Datasets are versioned and can be used to create ground truth for custom evaluators or to benchmark model versions. Synthetic data generation approach is undocumented but implied to use LLM-based generation.
Unique: Combines synthetic, development, and production data sources into versioned evaluation datasets with automatic ground truth generation, enabling continuous dataset evolution as production traces accumulate
vs alternatives: Integrates dataset curation with production observability, allowing evaluation datasets to be automatically enriched with real production traces rather than requiring manual dataset maintenance
+5 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 Galileo at 57/100.
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