| 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 12 decomposed | 13 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Routes each input token through exactly 2 of 8 expert networks per transformer layer using a learned router network, activating only 12.9B of 46.7B total parameters per forward pass. The router makes independent routing decisions per token per layer, with expert outputs combined additively. This sparse activation pattern enables inference throughput equivalent to a 12.9B dense model while maintaining GPT-3.5-level performance across benchmarks.
Unique: Uses token-level routing to 2-of-8 experts per layer with simultaneous expert and router training, achieving 27.6% parameter utilization while maintaining dense-model performance. Differs from dense models (which activate all parameters) and from other MoE designs by using learned routing per token rather than sequence-level or document-level routing.
vs alternatives: Achieves 6x faster inference than Llama 2 70B with equivalent performance by activating only 12.9B parameters per token, whereas dense models must activate all parameters regardless of task complexity.
Generates coherent, contextually-aware text across general-purpose language tasks by applying transformer decoder architecture with 32K token context window. The model was trained on open web data and achieves performance parity with GPT-3.5 on standard benchmarks (MMLU, HellaSwag, TruthfulQA, Winogrande, GSM8K, MATH, HumanEval) while maintaining lower computational cost through sparse routing. Supports both base and instruction-tuned variants, with the Instruct variant fine-tuned via supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and Direct Preference Optimization (DPO).
Unique: Achieves GPT-3.5-level performance on standard benchmarks (MMLU, HellaSwag, TruthfulQA, Winogrande, GSM8K, MATH, HumanEval) while using sparse mixture-of-experts routing to reduce inference cost. Unlike dense models of equivalent capability, Mixtral activates only 27.6% of parameters per token, enabling faster inference without performance degradation.
vs alternatives: Matches GPT-3.5 performance on standard benchmarks while being 6x faster than Llama 2 70B and fully open-source under Apache 2.0, making it the best cost-performance option for self-hosted GPT-3.5-equivalent inference at the time of release.
Evaluated across standard language model benchmarks including MMLU (knowledge), HellaSwag (common sense reasoning), TruthfulQA (factuality), Winogrande (coreference resolution), GSM8K (math), MATH (advanced math), and HumanEval (code generation). Results demonstrate performance parity with GPT-3.5 on most benchmarks, with specific scores provided for MT-Bench (8.30 for Instruct variant). Benchmark evaluation enables quantitative comparison with other models and verification of capability claims.
Unique: Evaluated across 7+ standard benchmarks (MMLU, HellaSwag, TruthfulQA, Winogrande, GSM8K, MATH, HumanEval) with documented MT-Bench score of 8.30 for Instruct variant. Provides quantitative performance comparison enabling verification of GPT-3.5-level capability claims.
vs alternatives: Demonstrates GPT-3.5-level performance on standard benchmarks while being 6x faster than Llama 2 70B and fully open-source, providing quantitative evidence of capability parity with commercial models at lower inference cost.
Base model (non-Instruct variant) has no built-in safety guardrails and will follow any instruction without refusal or content filtering. Safety behavior is not enforced through training or architecture; instead, the model relies on explicit prompting or preference optimization (as in the Instruct variant) to learn refusal behavior. This design choice prioritizes capability and flexibility over safety by default, requiring users to implement safety measures explicitly.
Unique: Base model has no built-in safety guardrails and will follow any instruction without refusal, prioritizing capability and flexibility over safety by default. Differs from Instruct variant which has learned safety behavior through DPO, and from commercial models with built-in content filtering.
vs alternatives: Provides unconstrained base model for research and fine-tuning without safety-induced refusals, whereas commercial models (GPT-3.5, Claude) have built-in safety guardrails that may interfere with capability assessment or domain-specific applications.
Generates and completes code across multiple programming languages by applying transformer decoder architecture trained on code-inclusive datasets. The model demonstrates strong performance on HumanEval benchmark and supports code generation for tasks ranging from single-function completion to multi-file refactoring. Instruction-tuned variant (Mixtral 8x7B Instruct) provides improved code understanding and explanation capabilities through supervised fine-tuning and preference optimization.
Unique: Explicitly documented as having 'strong performance' on code generation tasks with HumanEval benchmark results, achieved through training on code-inclusive datasets and instruction-tuning via SFT + DPO. Sparse routing architecture enables code generation at 6x faster inference speed than dense 70B models.
vs alternatives: Provides open-source code generation with GPT-3.5-level performance and 6x faster inference than Llama 2 70B, enabling self-hosted code completion without reliance on proprietary APIs or external services.
Generates coherent text in English, French, German, Spanish, and Italian through transformer decoder architecture trained on multilingual open web data. The model maintains language-specific performance across supported languages while using the same sparse routing mechanism as English generation. Multilingual performance is documented with benchmark results for each language, though specific scores are not detailed in available documentation.
Unique: Supports 5 European languages (English, French, German, Spanish, Italian) with documented multilingual benchmarks, trained on language-inclusive open web data. Achieves multilingual performance through unified sparse routing architecture rather than language-specific expert routing.
vs alternatives: Provides multilingual support across 5 languages with GPT-3.5-level performance in a single open-source model, eliminating the need to maintain separate language-specific instances or rely on proprietary multilingual APIs.
Follows natural language instructions and engages in multi-turn conversation through the Mixtral 8x7B Instruct variant, which is fine-tuned via supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and Direct Preference Optimization (DPO). The instruction-tuned variant achieves MT-Bench score of 8.30, positioning it as the best open-source model on this benchmark at release. The model learns to refuse harmful requests and provide helpful, harmless, and honest responses through preference optimization, though safety guardrails are not guaranteed without explicit prompting.
Unique: Fine-tuned via supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) to achieve MT-Bench score of 8.30, claimed as best open-source model at release. Combines instruction-following with preference-learned safety behavior, though safety is not guaranteed without explicit prompting.
vs alternatives: Achieves MT-Bench score of 8.30 (best open-source at release) with 6x faster inference than Llama 2 70B, providing instruction-following quality comparable to GPT-3.5 while maintaining open-source licensing and self-hosting capability.
Enables efficient inference through integration with vLLM framework and Megablocks CUDA kernels, which are specifically optimized for sparse mixture-of-experts computation. The sparse activation pattern (2 of 8 experts per token) is implemented via custom CUDA kernels that avoid computing inactive expert parameters, reducing memory bandwidth and compute requirements. Inference throughput is equivalent to a 12.9B dense model despite 46.7B total parameters, achieving 6x speedup over Llama 2 70B while maintaining equivalent performance.
Unique: Integrates with vLLM and Megablocks CUDA kernels specifically optimized for sparse mixture-of-experts computation, enabling inference throughput equivalent to 12.9B dense model while maintaining 46.7B parameter capacity. Custom CUDA kernels avoid computing inactive expert parameters, reducing memory bandwidth and compute requirements.
vs alternatives: Achieves 6x faster inference than Llama 2 70B through Megablocks CUDA kernel optimization of sparse routing, whereas dense models must compute all parameters regardless of task complexity, making Mixtral significantly more efficient for production inference.
+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 8x7B 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