| Ecosystem | 1 | 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 11 decomposed | 16 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Enables developers to write data quality tests as Python code using an Expectation-based DSL that encodes business logic and data contracts. Tests are expressed declaratively (e.g., 'column X must be non-null', 'values in column Y must be between 0-100') and compiled into executable validation rules that can be versioned, shared, and integrated into CI/CD pipelines. The framework abstracts away the complexity of implementing custom validation logic by providing a library of pre-built Expectation types covering common data quality patterns.
Unique: Uses an Expectation-based DSL that separates test definition from execution, allowing tests to be stored as configuration (JSON/YAML) and executed against multiple data sources without code changes. This is distinct from imperative validation frameworks that require custom code per data source.
vs alternatives: More flexible and maintainable than hand-written SQL validation queries because tests are source-agnostic and can be applied to Pandas, Spark, SQL databases, and cloud data warehouses with identical syntax.
Provides a Checkpoint abstraction that bundles multiple Expectations and executes them at defined stages in a data pipeline (development, pre-downstream, production). Checkpoints can be triggered manually, on-schedule, or integrated into orchestration tools (Airflow, dbt, Prefect) to validate data at ingestion, transformation, and output stages. Results are collected and can trigger alerts, block downstream processing, or log to monitoring systems. The framework supports conditional validation logic and parameterized Expectations to adapt tests to different data contexts.
Unique: Checkpoint abstraction decouples test definition from execution context, allowing the same Expectation Suite to be validated at multiple pipeline stages with different data subsets. Supports parameterized Expectations that adapt to runtime context (e.g., different thresholds for dev vs. production).
vs alternatives: More integrated than point-solution data quality tools because Checkpoints are designed to be embedded in orchestration code (Airflow operators, dbt tests) rather than requiring a separate validation platform.
Great Expectations provides a framework for developing custom Expectations that extend the built-in library with domain-specific validation logic. Custom Expectations are implemented as Python classes that inherit from base Expectation classes and implement validation logic, rendering logic, and metadata. The framework handles execution, result collection, and integration with the standard validation pipeline. Custom Expectations can be packaged as plugins and shared across teams or published to the community. The framework supports custom Expectation validation, documentation generation, and testing utilities.
Unique: Provides a structured framework for implementing custom Expectations as Python classes with built-in support for validation, rendering, and metadata. Custom Expectations integrate seamlessly with the standard validation pipeline and can be packaged as plugins.
vs alternatives: More extensible than closed validation platforms because custom Expectations can implement arbitrary validation logic and integrate with third-party libraries.
Provides an AI-assisted test generation feature (ExpectAI) that analyzes sample data and automatically generates Expectation Suites reflecting observed data patterns and statistical properties. The system infers constraints on column types, value ranges, null rates, and distributions, then suggests Expectations that encode these patterns. Generated tests can be reviewed, edited, and committed to version control. This reduces manual effort in bootstrapping data quality tests for new data sources or tables.
Unique: Uses AI/ML to infer data quality rules from statistical analysis of sample data, generating Expectations that encode observed patterns. This is distinct from rule-based systems that require explicit configuration of validation logic.
vs alternatives: Faster than manual Expectation authoring for large numbers of tables, but requires human review to ensure generated tests align with business logic rather than just statistical patterns.
Executes Expectations and produces structured validation results (JSON/YAML) containing pass/fail status, failure counts, and diagnostic metadata for each Expectation. Results are aggregated into Validation Reports that can be rendered as HTML Data Docs—human-readable documentation showing data quality metrics, test results, and data lineage. Data Docs are versioned and can be hosted on static web servers or integrated into data catalogs. Results can also be exported to monitoring systems, data warehouses, or custom dashboards for real-time quality tracking.
Unique: Generates both machine-readable (JSON) and human-readable (HTML Data Docs) validation results from the same Expectation execution, enabling both automated alerting and stakeholder communication without separate reporting tools.
vs alternatives: More integrated than exporting raw validation results to BI tools because Data Docs provide context (Expectation descriptions, failure examples, historical trends) alongside metrics.
Abstracts data source connectivity through a connector pattern, enabling Expectations to be executed against multiple data sources (SQL databases, Pandas DataFrames, Spark, Snowflake, BigQuery, Redshift, etc.) without changing test code. Connectors handle data fetching, query translation, and result collection. The framework supports both batch validation (full table scans) and sampling-based validation for large datasets. Connectors are extensible; custom connectors can be implemented for proprietary data systems.
Unique: Uses a connector abstraction layer that translates Expectations into data-source-specific queries (SQL, Spark SQL, etc.), enabling test portability across heterogeneous systems. Connectors handle dialect differences and optimization strategies per data source.
vs alternatives: More flexible than data source-specific validation tools because the same Expectation Suite can be executed against Pandas, Spark, Snowflake, and BigQuery without rewriting tests.
GX Cloud provides a fully-managed SaaS platform that eliminates the need to self-host and manage Great Expectations infrastructure. The platform includes a web-based UI for test authoring, a managed validation execution engine, result storage, and Data Docs hosting. Teams can set up validation in minutes without deploying Python code or managing databases. GX Cloud includes features like ExpectAI, real-time monitoring dashboards, team collaboration tools, and integrations with data orchestration platforms. Pricing tiers (Developer free, Team, Enterprise) support different team sizes and feature sets.
Unique: Provides a fully-managed SaaS alternative to self-hosted Great Expectations, with web-based UI, managed execution, and built-in features (ExpectAI, dashboards, team collaboration) that eliminate infrastructure management. Pricing tiers support different team sizes and use cases.
vs alternatives: Faster to deploy than self-hosted GX Core for teams without DevOps resources, but less flexible and more expensive at scale compared to open-source self-hosted option.
Expectation Suites are stored as JSON/YAML configuration files that can be versioned in Git, enabling data quality tests to be treated as code. Suites are decoupled from specific data sources, allowing the same suite to be executed against different tables or databases without modification. Configuration management supports parameterization (e.g., table name, column names, thresholds) enabling test reuse across similar datasets. Suites can be organized hierarchically and shared across teams. The framework supports suite validation, merging, and conflict resolution for collaborative workflows.
Unique: Expectation Suites are stored as declarative configuration (JSON/YAML) that can be versioned in Git and executed against multiple data sources without code changes. Parameterization enables test reuse across similar datasets with different table/column names or thresholds.
vs alternatives: More maintainable than imperative validation code because test definitions are declarative and can be reviewed, versioned, and reused without custom code per data source.
+3 more capabilities
The Notebook Agent accepts natural language queries and generates executable SQL code by searching endorsed semantic models and table schemas in connected data warehouses. The agent serializes notebook context (available tables, previous queries, semantic definitions) and uses an LLM to synthesize SQL that references specific tables and metrics by name, then executes the generated code server-side on Hex infrastructure with configurable compute profiles (Small to 4XL CPU/GPU options).
Unique: Integrates with dbt semantic models to make agents aware of endorsed metrics and standardized definitions, enabling queries that reference business logic rather than raw tables. Most competitors (Jupyter + ChatGPT, Databricks SQL Assistant) lack semantic layer awareness and generate queries against raw schemas.
vs alternatives: Generates SQL that respects your company's metric definitions and semantic models, whereas ChatGPT or Copilot would generate queries against raw tables without understanding business logic.
The Notebook Agent generates executable Python code from natural language requests by analyzing the current notebook state (previous cell outputs, imported libraries, variable definitions) and synthesizing code that integrates with existing analysis. Generated code executes server-side on Hex compute infrastructure, with access to standard Python libraries and the ability to reference upstream cell outputs as DataFrames or other objects.
Unique: Generates Python code with awareness of notebook state (upstream cell outputs, variable definitions), enabling agents to write code that integrates with existing analysis rather than standalone scripts. Jupyter + ChatGPT requires manual context passing; Copilot for VS Code lacks notebook-specific context awareness.
vs alternatives: Understands your notebook's execution state and can reference upstream DataFrames and variables, whereas ChatGPT or Copilot would generate isolated code snippets without knowledge of what's already computed.
Hex scores higher at 55/100 vs great-expectations at 28/100. great-expectations leads on ecosystem, while Hex is stronger on adoption and quality.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
Published apps (Team+ feature) support visual data exploration where users can drill down into underlying data by clicking on chart elements or table rows. The system automatically generates drill-down queries based on the selected data point, enabling users to explore data hierarchies without manual query writing. Drill-down is only available in published apps, not in edit mode.
Unique: Automatically generates drill-down queries from chart interactions, enabling users to explore data hierarchies without manual query writing. Tableau and Looker require explicit drill-down configuration; Hex appears to infer drill-down paths automatically.
vs alternatives: Users can click on charts to drill down to detail without writing queries, whereas Tableau requires explicit drill-down path configuration and Jupyter requires manual query writing.
Hex offers six compute tiers (Small: 2GB RAM/0.25 CPU through 4XL: 96GB RAM/24 CPU) plus optional GPU acceleration. Free tier limited to Small compute; Medium compute (8GB RAM/1 CPU) included on all paid plans; Large+ tiers incur per-minute charges ($0.32-$2.58/hr for CPU, $2.93-$4.06/hr for GPU). Users select compute profile per notebook, and costs are billed per-minute of execution time beyond included allowances.
Unique: Offers granular compute tier selection with per-minute billing for Large+ tiers, enabling users to scale compute without changing plans. Most notebook tools (Jupyter, Databricks) either have fixed compute or require plan changes; Hex's per-minute billing is closer to cloud function pricing (AWS Lambda, Google Cloud Functions).
vs alternatives: Users can scale compute on-demand without changing plans, whereas Databricks requires plan changes and Jupyter requires local infrastructure management.
Team+ tier enables exporting notebooks as Git projects and importing packages (shared components, templates) from other notebooks. This allows teams to version control notebooks in Git, share reusable components across projects, and maintain a library of analysis templates. Export format and Git integration details not fully documented.
Unique: Enables Git export and package import for notebooks, allowing version control and code reuse across projects. Jupyter has nbdime for Git diffing but no native package system; Databricks has workspace versioning but not Git integration.
vs alternatives: Notebooks can be version controlled in Git and components can be shared across projects, whereas Jupyter requires manual Git setup and Databricks has limited Git integration.
Enterprise plan includes OIDC single sign-on (SSO) for centralized authentication, OAuth database connections for warehouse access, audit logs for compliance tracking, and HIPAA compliance certification. These features enable organizations to enforce authentication policies, track user actions, and meet regulatory requirements without managing credentials in Hex.
Unique: Provides OIDC SSO and audit logs for enterprise authentication and compliance, enabling organizations to enforce centralized identity policies. Most notebook tools (Jupyter, Databricks) require separate identity management; Hex integrates SSO natively.
vs alternatives: Enforces single sign-on and provides audit logs for compliance, whereas Jupyter requires external identity management and Databricks has limited audit capabilities.
Enterprise plan enables embedding Hex apps in external websites (embedded analytics) and deploying custom Docker images with pre-installed packages or custom runtime environments. Single-tenant deployment option available for organizations requiring isolated infrastructure.
Unique: Enables embedded analytics and custom Docker deployments for Enterprise customers, allowing integration into external websites and custom runtime environments. Most notebook tools lack embedded analytics; Tableau and Looker have embedded analytics but require separate licensing.
vs alternatives: Dashboards can be embedded in external websites and custom Docker images can be deployed, whereas Jupyter has no embedded analytics and Databricks requires separate embedding infrastructure.
Enterprise plan option for deploying Hex in a single-tenant environment with HIPAA compliance, custom branding (white-label), and dedicated support. Enables embedding Hex analytics in customer-facing applications without Hex branding. Requires custom contract and pricing.
Unique: Offers single-tenant deployment with white-label branding and HIPAA compliance, enabling SaaS companies to embed Hex as a white-label analytics solution. Unlike most notebooks (which are multi-tenant only), Hex provides enterprise deployment options for customer-facing products.
vs alternatives: More suitable for SaaS embedding than Tableau because it's designed for code-first analytics and can be white-labeled without separate data modeling.
+8 more capabilities