| 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 12 decomposed | 13 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Generates syntactically correct and semantically meaningful code across 116 programming languages by leveraging a unified decoder-only transformer architecture trained on 3-4 trillion tokens of language-agnostic code data during Phase 1, followed by mixed code-language training in Phase 2. The model learns cross-language patterns and idioms through exposure to diverse codebases, enabling it to generate contextually appropriate code regardless of target language without language-specific tokenizers or specialized heads.
Unique: Trained on 116 programming languages with unified tokenization and no language-specific architectural branches, enabling cross-language code generation from a single model rather than language-specific fine-tunes. Uses a two-phase training approach (3-4T code tokens + 500B mixed tokens) to balance code-specific patterns with natural language understanding for better instruction following.
vs alternatives: Broader language coverage than Codex (92 languages) and more balanced multilingual performance than Copilot, which optimizes primarily for Python/JavaScript; Granite's enterprise data filtering and PII redaction make it safer for regulated industries than models trained on raw GitHub.
Fine-tunes base models on instruction datasets derived from Git commits paired with human-written instructions and synthetically generated code instruction data, enabling the model to follow natural language directives for code modification tasks. The instruction tuning process leverages commit messages as implicit task descriptions and diffs as ground-truth code transformations, teaching the model to understand intent-driven code changes rather than just pattern completion.
Unique: Instruction tuning leverages Git commits as implicit task descriptions (commit message + diff pairs), grounding instruction following in real-world code change semantics rather than synthetic instruction-response pairs alone. Combines human-annotated instructions with synthetically generated datasets to scale instruction diversity while maintaining quality.
vs alternatives: More grounded in real development workflows than models tuned on synthetic instruction datasets alone; Git-based tuning captures actual developer intent patterns, making it more effective for practical code modification tasks than instruction-only fine-tuning approaches.
Performs targeted code edits and refactoring operations (e.g., extract function, rename variables, restructure logic) while preserving code semantics and functionality. The model understands code structure and intent well enough to make surgical edits without breaking functionality, leveraging semantic understanding developed during training on diverse codebases.
Unique: Learns refactoring patterns implicitly from training data rather than using explicit refactoring rules or AST transformations. The semantic understanding enables the model to make context-aware refactoring decisions that preserve intent while improving code structure.
vs alternatives: More flexible than rule-based refactoring tools (e.g., IDE built-in refactoring) because it can handle refactoring patterns not covered by explicit rules; more practical than formal verification approaches because it doesn't require mathematical proofs, making it suitable for real-world code with incomplete specifications.
Generates contextually appropriate code completions by leveraging surrounding code context and, within context window limits, multi-file context to understand project structure and dependencies. The model uses attention mechanisms to identify relevant code patterns from the context window and generate completions that align with existing code style, naming conventions, and architectural patterns.
Unique: Uses transformer attention mechanisms to identify relevant code patterns from multi-file context within the model's context window, enabling completions that respect project conventions and architectural patterns without explicit project structure parsing.
vs alternatives: More context-aware than simple pattern-matching completion (e.g., basic IDE autocomplete) because it understands code semantics; more practical than full codebase indexing approaches because it works within the model's context window without requiring external indexing infrastructure.
Implements a multi-stage data processing pipeline that filters, deduplicates, and sanitizes code training data through exact and fuzzy deduplication, PII redaction (replacing sensitive information with tokens), ClamAV malware scanning, and content filtering to reduce harmful code generation. This pipeline ensures training data complies with enterprise security and compliance requirements while maintaining code quality and diversity.
Unique: Combines exact deduplication (hash-based), fuzzy deduplication (similarity-based), PII redaction (token replacement), and ClamAV malware scanning in a single integrated pipeline specifically designed for code data. Treats code data curation as a first-class concern rather than an afterthought, with explicit compliance and security controls built into the training data preparation process.
vs alternatives: More rigorous data sanitization than models trained on raw GitHub data (e.g., Codex, GPT-4); explicit malware scanning and PII redaction make Granite safer for enterprise deployment where data governance and compliance are non-negotiable.
Provides four parameter-size variants (3B, 8B, 20B, 34B) each with configurable context windows (2K, 4K, 8K tokens), enabling deployment across diverse hardware constraints from edge devices to data centers. The model family uses a unified architecture with consistent tokenization and training methodology, allowing seamless model swapping without retraining or prompt engineering changes.
Unique: Unified architecture across four parameter sizes (3B-34B) with consistent tokenization and training methodology, enabling zero-retraining model swapping. Each size variant is available with multiple context window options (2K, 4K, 8K), allowing fine-grained hardware/latency optimization without model retraining.
vs alternatives: More granular size options than Codex (which has fewer variants) and more flexible context windows than fixed-context models; allows organizations to optimize for specific hardware constraints and latency requirements without sacrificing model consistency.
Generates natural language explanations of code functionality, purpose, and behavior by leveraging the model's understanding of code semantics learned during Phase 2 training (80% code + 20% language mixture). The model can produce docstrings, comments, and high-level summaries by conditioning on code input and generating corresponding natural language output.
Unique: Trained on mixed code-language data (Phase 2: 80% code + 20% language) specifically to develop bidirectional code-language understanding, enabling both code generation from text and text generation from code. This mixed-phase training approach is distinct from code-only models that lack natural language grounding.
vs alternatives: Better at generating contextually relevant explanations than code-only models (e.g., GPT-2 trained on code); the Phase 2 mixed training ensures the model understands both code semantics and natural language expression, producing more coherent documentation than models without language grounding.
Identifies and fixes common code bugs by leveraging semantic understanding of code patterns learned during training on diverse codebases. The model can detect logical errors, missing error handling, type mismatches, and resource leaks by conditioning on buggy code and generating corrected versions, without explicit bug detection rules or static analysis.
Unique: Learns bug fixing patterns implicitly from diverse training data rather than using explicit bug detection rules or static analysis. The semantic understanding developed during training on 3-4T code tokens enables the model to recognize buggy patterns and generate fixes without domain-specific bug detection logic.
vs alternatives: More flexible than rule-based bug detection tools (e.g., linters) because it can fix bugs not covered by explicit rules; more practical than formal verification approaches because it doesn't require mathematical proofs, making it suitable for real-world code with incomplete specifications.
+4 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 Granite at 58/100.
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