| 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 12 decomposed | 13 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Generates text using a sparse mixture-of-experts architecture with 8 experts of 22B parameters each, activating only 2 experts per token for 44B active parameters. This sparse activation pattern reduces computational cost compared to dense models while maintaining 176B total parameter capacity. The routing mechanism dynamically selects which 2 experts process each token based on learned gating functions, enabling efficient inference on consumer hardware.
Unique: Uses 8 independent 22B-parameter experts with dynamic per-token routing (2 active experts) instead of dense transformer layers, achieving 44B active parameters from 176B total — a 25% sparsity ratio that reduces inference cost while maintaining parameter capacity for complex reasoning. This sparse activation pattern is fundamentally different from dense models like Llama 70B, which activate all parameters for every token.
vs alternatives: Faster inference than dense 70B models (sparse activation advantage) while maintaining comparable reasoning quality; more parameter-efficient than dense alternatives but requires specialized inference infrastructure unlike standard dense transformers.
Supports structured function calling through native integration with Mistral's constrained output mode on la Plateforme, enabling the model to generate function calls in a schema-compliant format without hallucinating invalid function names or parameters. The model learns during training to recognize function schemas and produce valid JSON-formatted function calls that downstream systems can parse and execute deterministically.
Unique: Implements function calling through constrained decoding that guarantees output conforms to provided JSON schemas, preventing hallucinated function names or invalid parameters. Unlike models that generate function calls as free-form text requiring post-hoc validation, Mixtral 8x22B's constrained mode enforces schema compliance during token generation itself.
vs alternatives: Guarantees schema-valid function calls without post-processing validation (unlike GPT-4 or Claude which require JSON parsing and validation), reducing latency and eliminating parsing errors in agentic workflows.
An instruction-tuned variant of Mixtral 8x22B is available, optimized for following user instructions, chat interactions, and task-specific prompts. This variant shows improved performance on mathematical reasoning (90.8% GSM8K, 44.6% MATH) and likely better instruction-following compared to the base model. The instruction-tuning process teaches the model to recognize task descriptions and generate appropriate responses aligned with user intent.
Unique: Instruction-tuned variant achieves 90.8% on GSM8K through explicit training on mathematical reasoning tasks, demonstrating that instruction-tuning improves task-specific performance. This variant is optimized for following user instructions vs the base model's general language modeling.
vs alternatives: Better instruction-following than base model; comparable to GPT-3.5-turbo on chat tasks (specific benchmarks unknown); open-source licensing enables fine-tuning for custom instructions vs closed-source models.
Achieves 77.8% accuracy on the Massive Multitask Language Understanding (MMLU) benchmark, a comprehensive evaluation of knowledge across 57 diverse subjects including STEM, humanities, and social sciences. This benchmark score indicates broad knowledge coverage and reasoning capability across multiple domains. The score positions Mixtral 8x22B as a capable general-purpose model suitable for knowledge-intensive tasks, though specific subject-level performance breakdown is not provided.
Unique: 77.8% MMLU performance achieved through sparse MoE architecture with selective expert activation, enabling knowledge-specialized experts to activate for different subject domains. This allows efficient knowledge coverage without requiring full model capacity for every question.
vs alternatives: Competitive with other open-weight models on MMLU; lower than proprietary models (GPT-4, Claude 3) but higher than smaller open models (LLaMA 2 13B-34B); sparse activation enables this performance with lower inference cost than dense 70B models
Generates fluent text in English, French, Italian, German, and Spanish with native language understanding trained into the model weights. The model demonstrates strong cross-lingual performance on benchmarks like MMLU and HellaSwag, outperforming Llama 2 70B on multilingual variants. Language selection is implicit in the input prompt; no explicit language-switching mechanism is required.
Unique: Achieves native fluency across 5 European languages (English, French, Italian, German, Spanish) through unified training, outperforming Llama 2 70B on multilingual MMLU and HellaSwag benchmarks. Rather than using language-specific adapters or separate models, Mixtral 8x22B integrates multilingual capability into the base architecture.
vs alternatives: Single model handles 5 languages with better multilingual performance than Llama 2 70B, reducing deployment complexity vs maintaining separate language-specific models; comparable to GPT-4 multilingual capability but with Apache 2.0 licensing.
The instructed version of Mixtral 8x22B achieves 90.8% on GSM8K (grade-school math with majority voting over 8 samples) and 44.6% on MATH (competition-level mathematics with majority voting over 4 samples) through instruction-tuning that teaches the model to decompose mathematical problems into step-by-step reasoning chains. The model learns to recognize mathematical operators, maintain numerical precision, and apply algebraic transformations correctly.
Unique: Achieves 90.8% on GSM8K through instruction-tuning that teaches explicit step-by-step mathematical reasoning, with majority voting over 8 samples. This approach trades inference cost (8x sampling) for accuracy, making it suitable for applications where reasoning transparency is valued over single-sample speed.
vs alternatives: Strong grade-school math performance (90.8% GSM8K) comparable to GPT-3.5-turbo; weaker on competition-level math (44.6% MATH) than GPT-4 or specialized math models; open-source licensing enables fine-tuning for domain-specific math tasks.
Supports a native 64K token context window, enabling the model to process documents, conversations, and code repositories up to approximately 48,000 words without truncation or sliding-window approximations. The context window is implemented as a standard transformer attention mechanism scaled to 64K positions, allowing the model to maintain coherence across long-range dependencies and reference information from document beginnings in later generations.
Unique: Implements a native 64K token context window using standard transformer attention scaled to 64K positions, enabling full-document processing without chunking or sliding-window approximations. This is 4x larger than Llama 2's 4K context and comparable to GPT-4's 128K window, but with open-source licensing.
vs alternatives: 64K context enables single-pass document processing vs chunking-based approaches (RAG); larger than Llama 2 (4K) but smaller than GPT-4 (128K); open-source licensing allows fine-tuning for domain-specific long-context tasks.
Generates code across multiple programming languages using the sparse mixture-of-experts architecture, where expert routing dynamically selects relevant experts for code-specific patterns. The model learns to recognize syntax, semantics, and common code patterns during training, enabling it to complete functions, refactor code, and generate bug fixes. Specific code language support and performance metrics (HumanEval, MBPP) are not detailed in available documentation.
Unique: Applies sparse mixture-of-experts routing to code generation, potentially specializing different experts for different programming paradigms or language families. Unlike dense code models, expert routing may optimize for syntax-heavy vs semantic-heavy code patterns.
vs alternatives: Open-source code generation with sparse activation efficiency; specific code performance metrics unknown, limiting comparison to Copilot or CodeLlama; Apache 2.0 licensing enables commercial use without restrictions.
+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 Mixtral 8x22B 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