| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 14 decomposed | 10 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
GPT-4o processes text, images, and audio through a single transformer architecture with shared token representations, eliminating separate modality encoders. Images are tokenized into visual patches and embedded into the same vector space as text tokens, enabling seamless cross-modal reasoning without explicit fusion layers. Audio is converted to mel-spectrogram tokens and processed identically to text, allowing the model to reason about speech content, speaker characteristics, and emotional tone in a single forward pass.
Unique: Single unified transformer processes all modalities through shared token space rather than separate encoders + fusion layers; eliminates modality-specific bottlenecks and enables emergent cross-modal reasoning patterns not possible with bolted-on vision/audio modules
vs alternatives: Faster and more coherent multimodal reasoning than Claude 3.5 Sonnet or Gemini 2.0 because unified architecture avoids cross-encoder latency and modality mismatch artifacts
GPT-4o implements a 128,000-token context window using optimized attention patterns (likely sparse or grouped-query attention variants) that reduce memory complexity from O(n²) to near-linear scaling. This enables processing of entire codebases, long documents, or multi-turn conversations without truncation. The model maintains coherence across the full context through learned positional embeddings that generalize beyond training sequence lengths.
Unique: Achieves 128K context with sub-linear attention complexity through architectural optimizations (likely grouped-query attention or sparse patterns) rather than naive quadratic attention, enabling practical long-context inference without prohibitive memory costs
vs alternatives: Longer context window than GPT-4 Turbo (128K vs 128K, but with faster inference) and more efficient than Anthropic Claude 3.5 Sonnet (200K context but slower) for most production latency requirements
GPT-4o includes built-in safety mechanisms that filter harmful content, refuse unsafe requests, and provide explanations for refusals. The model is trained to decline requests for illegal activities, violence, abuse, and other harmful content. Safety filtering operates at inference time without requiring external moderation APIs. Applications can configure safety levels or override defaults for specific use cases.
Unique: Safety filtering is integrated into the model's training and inference, not a post-hoc filter; the model learns to refuse harmful requests during pretraining, resulting in more natural refusals than external moderation systems
vs alternatives: More integrated safety than external moderation APIs (which add latency and may miss context-dependent harms) because safety reasoning is part of the model's core capabilities
GPT-4o supports batch processing through OpenAI's Batch API, where multiple requests are submitted together and processed asynchronously at lower cost (50% discount). Batches are processed in the background and results are retrieved via polling or webhooks. Ideal for non-time-sensitive workloads like data processing, content generation, and analysis at scale.
Unique: Batch API is a first-class API tier with 50% cost discount, not a workaround; enables cost-effective processing of large-scale workloads by trading latency for savings
vs alternatives: More cost-effective than real-time API for bulk processing because 50% discount applies to all batch requests; better than self-hosting because no infrastructure management required
GPT-4o can analyze screenshots of code, whiteboards, and diagrams to understand intent and generate corresponding code. The model extracts code from images, understands handwritten pseudocode, and generates implementation from visual designs. Enables workflows where developers can sketch ideas visually and have them converted to working code.
Unique: Vision-based code understanding is native to the unified architecture, enabling the model to reason about visual design intent and generate code directly from images without separate vision-to-text conversion
vs alternatives: More integrated than separate vision + code generation pipelines because the model understands design intent and can generate semantically appropriate code, not just transcribe visible text
GPT-4o maintains conversation state across multiple turns, preserving context and building coherent narratives. The model tracks conversation history, remembers user preferences and constraints mentioned earlier, and generates responses that are consistent with prior exchanges. Supports up to 128K tokens of conversation history without losing coherence.
Unique: Context preservation is handled through explicit message history in the API, not implicit server-side state; gives applications full control over context management and enables stateless, scalable deployments
vs alternatives: More flexible than systems with implicit state management because applications can implement custom context pruning, summarization, or filtering strategies
GPT-4o includes built-in function calling via OpenAI's function schema format, where developers define tool signatures as JSON schemas and the model outputs structured function calls with validated arguments. The model learns to map natural language requests to appropriate functions and generate correctly-typed arguments without additional prompting. Supports parallel function calls (multiple tools invoked in single response) and automatic retry logic for invalid schemas.
Unique: Native function calling is deeply integrated into the model's training and inference, not a post-hoc wrapper; the model learns to reason about tool availability and constraints during pretraining, resulting in more natural tool selection than prompt-based approaches
vs alternatives: More reliable function calling than Claude 3.5 Sonnet (which uses tool_use blocks) because GPT-4o's schema binding is tighter and supports parallel calls natively without workarounds
GPT-4o's JSON mode constrains the output to valid JSON matching a provided schema, using constrained decoding (token-level filtering during generation) to ensure every output is parseable and schema-compliant. The model generates JSON directly without intermediate text, eliminating parsing errors and hallucinated fields. Supports nested objects, arrays, enums, and type constraints (string, number, boolean, null).
Unique: Uses token-level constrained decoding during inference to guarantee schema compliance, not post-hoc validation; the model's probability distribution is filtered at each step to only allow tokens that keep the output valid JSON, eliminating hallucinated fields entirely
vs alternatives: More reliable than Claude's tool_use for structured output because constrained decoding guarantees validity at generation time rather than relying on the model to self-correct
+6 more capabilities
Generates augmented test suites for MBPP problems by creating 35x more test cases than the original benchmark through systematic edge-case and boundary-condition generation. The system maintains structured metadata for each problem including base_input (original tests), plus_input (extended tests), contract (input validation constraints), atol (floating-point tolerance), canonical_solution (ground truth), and entry_point (function name). This architectural separation enables rigorous detection of fragile solutions that pass shallow tests but fail on edge cases, addressing the fundamental limitation that original MBPP's ~3 tests per task miss correctness issues.
Unique: Provides 35x test case multiplier specifically for MBPP (378 tasks) with structured metadata separation (base_input vs plus_input) and input validation contracts, enabling systematic edge-case coverage that original MBPP's ~3 tests per task cannot achieve. Uses canonical_solution ground truth execution to dynamically calibrate timeouts and floating-point tolerances per problem.
vs alternatives: Significantly more rigorous than original MBPP (3→105 tests per task average) and HumanEval+ (80x multiplier) while maintaining Python-specific focus; catches correctness issues that shallow benchmarks miss but requires more computational resources for evaluation.
Executes arbitrary Python code generated by LLMs in isolated processes with enforced resource limits and system call restrictions to prevent malicious or buggy code from crashing the evaluation framework. The untrusted_check function spawns separate processes via multiprocessing with shared memory IPC, applies memory limits (default 4GB via EVALPLUS_MAX_MEMORY_BYTES environment variable), dynamically calculated time limits based on ground truth execution time, I/O suppression via swallow_io to prevent output pollution, and reliability_guard to disable dangerous system calls. This architecture prevents code injection, infinite loops, memory exhaustion, and filesystem access while maintaining execution fidelity for correctness evaluation.
Implements multi-layer isolation using process-level separation (multiprocessing), memory limits (EVALPLUS_MAX_MEMORY_BYTES), dynamic timeout calculation from canonical_solution execution, I/O suppression (swallow_io), and system call restrictions (reliability_guard). This combination prevents both accidental crashes and intentional attacks while maintaining execution fidelity for correctness evaluation.
GPT-4o scores higher at 84/100 vs MBPP+ at 65/100.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
vs alternatives: More robust than simple try-catch approaches because it uses OS-level process isolation rather than Python-level exception handling; prevents infinite loops and memory exhaustion that would crash a single-process evaluator, though with higher latency than in-process execution.
Preprocesses LLM-generated code to normalize formatting, remove extraneous content, and extract the target function before execution. The sanitize module (evalplus/sanitize.py) handles variable formatting inconsistencies, removes comments and docstrings that may interfere with parsing, extracts the function matching the entry_point name, and validates syntax before execution. This ensures that evaluation results reflect code correctness rather than formatting quirks or LLM hallucinations like extra imports or wrapper code. The sanitization pipeline is essential because different LLMs produce code with different indentation, naming conventions, and structural patterns that would otherwise cause false negatives.
Unique: Implements multi-stage sanitization pipeline that separates formatting normalization (indentation, whitespace) from structural extraction (entry_point function isolation) and validation (syntax checking). Uses AST-based function extraction rather than regex, ensuring robust handling of complex code structures and nested functions.
vs alternatives: More robust than simple regex-based extraction because it uses Python's ast module for structural parsing; handles edge cases like nested functions, decorators, and complex indentation that regex approaches would miss. Enables fair comparison across LLM models with different output conventions.
Provides unified interface to generate code from 8+ LLM backends including vLLM, HuggingFace, OpenAI, Anthropic, Google Gemini, AWS Bedrock, and Ollama. The provider architecture (evalplus/provider/) abstracts backend-specific API details behind a common interface, handling authentication, request formatting, response parsing, and error handling for each provider. This enables researchers to benchmark code generation across different models and providers without rewriting evaluation code. The codegen module (evalplus/codegen.py) orchestrates the generation pipeline: problem specification → prompt formatting → LLM call → response extraction → sanitization → evaluation.
Unique: Implements provider abstraction layer that unifies 8+ LLM backends (vLLM, HuggingFace, OpenAI, Anthropic, Gemini, Bedrock, Ollama) behind a common interface, enabling single-codebase evaluation across local and cloud models. Each provider handles authentication, request formatting, and response parsing independently, allowing researchers to swap backends without modifying evaluation logic.
vs alternatives: More comprehensive than single-provider frameworks (e.g., OpenAI-only evaluators) because it supports both cloud APIs and self-hosted models; enables cost-benefit analysis between providers and avoids vendor lock-in. Abstraction layer reduces code duplication compared to implementing each provider separately.
Computes pass@k metrics by generating multiple code samples per problem and calculating the probability that at least one sample passes all tests. The metric is calculated as: pass@k = 1 - (C(n-c, k) / C(n, k)) where n is total samples, c is passing samples, and k is the sample count. This enables evaluation of model reliability: pass@1 measures single-shot accuracy, while pass@10 or pass@100 measures whether the model can eventually generate correct code. The framework aggregates results across all problems to produce dataset-level pass@k scores, enabling comparison of models' code generation reliability.
Unique: Implements pass@k metric using combinatorial formula (1 - C(n-c,k)/C(n,k)) rather than empirical sampling, enabling exact calculation without Monte Carlo approximation. Supports configurable k values and aggregation across problems, enabling multi-level analysis (per-problem, per-category, dataset-wide).
vs alternatives: More statistically rigorous than simple accuracy metrics because it accounts for sampling variance and model reliability; enables fair comparison between models with different single-shot accuracy but similar pass@k. Combinatorial calculation is faster and more precise than empirical sampling approaches.
Measures code efficiency using CPU instruction counting rather than wall-clock time, enabling reproducible performance evaluation across different hardware. The EvalPerf dataset generates performance-exercising inputs with exponential scaling (2^1 to 2^26 elements) to stress-test algorithmic complexity. The profiling pipeline uses Linux perf counters to measure CPU instructions, filters tasks based on profile size, compute cost, coefficient of variation, and performance clustering to select representative benchmarks. This approach isolates algorithmic efficiency from hardware variance, enabling rigorous comparison of code quality across models and implementations.
Unique: Uses CPU instruction counting via Linux perf counters rather than wall-clock time, enabling reproducible performance evaluation independent of hardware variance. Generates performance-exercising inputs with exponential scaling (2^1 to 2^26) to stress-test algorithmic complexity, and filters tasks based on profile size, compute cost, and coefficient of variation to select representative benchmarks.
vs alternatives: More reproducible than wall-clock timing because instruction counts are hardware-independent; enables fair comparison across different machines and cloud environments. Exponential input scaling reveals algorithmic complexity issues that constant-size inputs would miss, providing deeper insight into code quality.
Organizes MBPP+ problems as structured JSON with metadata fields: base_input (original test cases), plus_input (extended test cases), contract (input validation constraints), atol (floating-point tolerance), canonical_solution (ground truth implementation), and entry_point (function name). The dataset management system (evalplus/data/) loads problems from JSON, validates metadata consistency, and provides programmatic access to test cases and solutions. This structured approach enables systematic evaluation: problems can be filtered by category, difficulty, or test coverage; test cases can be aggregated across base and plus inputs; and metadata enables reproducible evaluation across different tools and frameworks.
Unique: Implements structured JSON-based dataset organization with explicit separation of base_input (original tests) and plus_input (extended tests), enabling selective evaluation and test coverage analysis. Metadata includes contract (input validation), atol (floating-point tolerance), canonical_solution, and entry_point, providing complete problem specification for reproducible evaluation.
vs alternatives: More structured than flat test files because metadata is explicitly organized and queryable; enables filtering, aggregation, and analysis that would be difficult with unstructured test data. JSON format is human-readable and tool-agnostic, supporting integration with external evaluation frameworks.
Provides CLI tools (evalplus.evaluate, evalplus.codegen, evalplus.evalperf, evalplus.sanitize) that orchestrate the complete evaluation workflow: code generation → sanitization → correctness evaluation → optional performance evaluation. The evaluate command executes generated code against MBPP+ test suites with configurable timeouts and memory limits, producing pass@k metrics and detailed result logs. The codegen command generates code from specified LLM providers. The evalperf command measures performance via instruction counting. The sanitize command preprocesses code before evaluation. This modular CLI design enables researchers to run evaluation pipelines without writing custom code, supporting reproducible benchmarking and result sharing.
Unique: Implements modular CLI tools (evaluate, codegen, evalperf, sanitize) that can be chained together or run independently, enabling flexible evaluation workflows. Each tool handles a specific stage of the pipeline (generation, sanitization, evaluation, performance measurement), allowing users to customize workflows without writing code.
vs alternatives: More user-friendly than programmatic APIs for researchers who prefer command-line tools; enables reproducible evaluation without custom code. Modular design allows selective use of components (e.g., evaluate without codegen) for flexibility.
+2 more capabilities