Benchmark Almanac

Spider 2.0

Models and agents write SQL for real enterprise databases with large schemas, across BigQuery, Snowflake, SQLite and dbt projects. Answers are checked by executing them.

Three settings: Spider 2.0-Snow, Spider 2.0-Lite and Spider 2.0-DBT, which replaced the original agent setting in 2025-05. The maker updates examples over time, so scores can drift.

In the authors’ words

Real-world enterprise text-to-SQL workflows often involve complex cloud or local data across various database systems, multiple SQL queries in various dialects, and diverse operations from data transformation to analytics. We introduce Spider 2.0, an evaluation framework comprising 632 real-world text-to-SQL workflow problems derived from enterprise-level database use cases. The databases in Spider 2.0 are sourced from real data applications, often containing over 1,000 columns and stored in local or cloud database systems such as BigQuery and Snowflake. We show that solving problems in Spider 2.0 frequently requires understanding and searching through database metadata, dialect documentation, and even project-level codebases. This challenge calls for models to interact with complex SQL workflow environments, process extremely long contexts, perform intricate reasoning, and generate multiple SQL queries with diverse operations, often exceeding 100 lines, which goes far beyond traditional text-to-SQL challenges. Our evaluations indicate that based on o1-preview, our code agent framework successfully solves only 21.3% of the tasks, compared with 91.2% on Spider 1.0 and 73.0% on BIRD. Our results on Spider 2.0 show that while language models have demonstrated remarkable performance in code generation – especially in prior text-to-SQL benchmarks – they require significant improvement in order to achieve adequate performance for real-world enterprise usage. Progress on Spider 2.0 represents crucial steps towards developing intelligent, autonomous, code agents for real-world enterprise settings. Our code, baseline models, and data are available at https://spider2-sql.github.io

Abstract of Spider 2.0: Evaluating Language Models on Real-World Enterprise Text-to-SQL Workflows (arXiv:2411.07763, CC0)
Made by XLANG Lab , The University of Hong Kong , with collaborators Released Nov 2024 Data science and SQL All tasks public Last in a launch post Jul 2025 , dropped before it saturated Last model added Jul 2025
Level
Expert Specialists with years of training, often over hours of work
Scored
Checked automatically A program checks the result against an answer key, unit tests or the expected final state.
Answers
Agent task Many steps in a terminal, browser, desktop, app, game or robot.
1
Model scored in lab cards
1
Launch post lists it, from 1 lab

Qwen3-Coder-480B-A35B leads with 31.1%

Best score per model as labs report them in their own cards. Labs pick their own settings, so these compare less cleanly than independent runs.

  1. 1 Qwen3-Coder-480B-A35B 31.1%
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Qwen3-Coder-480B-A35B 31.1% Jul 2025 Model card

Scores over time

All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.

Reported by the lab in its model card
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Near the ceiling (85%) Qwen3-Coder-480B-A35B 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Near the ceiling (85%) Qwen3-Coder-480B-A35B

No launch post has listed it since Jul 2025

Launch posts from every lab that has listed it, one tick per post. Tall colored ticks include it, and short gray ones leave it out.

Qwen
DateLaunch postScoreAs the post writes it
22 Jul 2025 Qwen3-Coder-480B-A35B 31.1 Spider2

Versions

More in Coding

All 243 in Coding
  • SWE-bench Verified In use 500 human-validated GitHub issues from 12 Python repos. Agent writes a patch that must pass hidden tests. Claude Opus 4.7 83.5%
  • SWE-bench Multilingual In use 300 GitHub-issue tasks across nine programming languages in SWE-bench format. Patch graded by repository tests. Claude Opus 5.5 93.9%
  • LiveCodeBench v6 In use Competitive programming problems collected after model cutoffs from LeetCode, AtCoder, Codeforces. Scored pass@1 on hidden tests. DeepSeek-V4-Pro 93.5%
  • DeepSWE In use 113 original long-horizon engineering tasks across 91 repos and five languages, written from scratch. Hand-written verifiers accept alternative solutions. GPT-6 Astra 74.1%
  • SciCode In use Scientist-curated research coding problems split into subproblems across natural sciences. Code checked against test cases. Seed2.1 Pro 59.8%
  • Codeforces rating In use Model solves recent Codeforces contest problems. An Elo-style rating is computed from simulated contest performance. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 3,471