Benchmark Almanac

WikiSQL

SeaD +Execution-Guided Decoding (Xu 2021) (Ant Group, Ada & ZhiXiaoBao) 93% tops its leaderboard
Not in model cards

Models turn natural language questions into SQL queries over single Wikipedia tables. The dataset has 80,654 hand-annotated questions over 24,241 tables. Scored by execution accuracy and logical form accuracy.

The repository keeps a leaderboard of papers trained on its training split. Each query covers one table, so it is far easier than Spider. About 1,800 GitHub stars.

Released
August 2017
Kind
Data science and SQL
Level
School
Scored
Checked automatically
Answers
Code
Tasks
All public

In the authors’ words

A significant amount of the world's knowledge is stored in relational databases. However, the ability for users to retrieve facts from a database is limited due to a lack of understanding of query languages such as SQL. We propose Seq2SQL, a deep neural network for translating natural language questions to corresponding SQL queries. Our model leverages the structure of SQL queries to significantly reduce the output space of generated queries. Moreover, we use rewards from in-the-loop query execution over the database to learn a policy to generate unordered parts of the query, which we show are less suitable for optimization via cross entropy loss. In addition, we will publish WikiSQL, a dataset of 80654 hand-annotated examples of questions and SQL queries distributed across 24241 tables from Wikipedia. This dataset is required to train our model and is an order of magnitude larger than comparable datasets. By applying policy-based reinforcement learning with a query execution environment to WikiSQL, our model Seq2SQL outperforms attentional sequence to sequence models, improving execution accuracy from 35.9% to 59.4% and logical form accuracy from 23.4% to 48.3%.

Abstract of Seq2SQL: Generating Structured Queries from Natural Language using Reinforcement Learning (arXiv:1709.00103, CC0)
39
Entries on its own leaderboard, 0 models we track

SeaD +Execution-Guided Decoding (Xu 2021) (Ant Group, Ada & ZhiXiaoBao) tops the leaderboard with 93%

Best score per entry from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on November 12th, 2026. Where a model ran with several settings or harnesses, we keep its best. Names in gray aren't in our model list: fine-tunes, agent systems, products and older models. They don't count toward leaders.

39 entries. Scroll sideways for the rest.

  1. 93.0 SeaD +Execution-Guided Decoding (Xu 2021) (Ant Group, Ada & ZhiXiaoBao)
  2. 92.7 SDSQL +Execution-Guided Decoding (Hui 2020) (Alibaba Group)
  3. 92.5 IE-SQL +Execution-Guided Decoding (Ma 2020) (Ping An Life, AI Team)
  4. 92.2 HydraNet +Execution-Guided Decoding (Lyu 2020) (Microsoft Dynamics 365 AI) (code)
  5. 91.9 BRIDGE^ +Execution-Guided Decoding (Lin 2020) (Salesforce Research)
  6. 91.8 X-SQL +Execution-Guided Decoding (He 2019)
  7. 91.4 SDSQL (Hui 2020) (Alibaba Group)
  8. 91.1 BRIDGE^ (Lin 2020) (Salesforce Research)
  9. 91.0 Text2SQLGen + EG (Mellah 2021) (Novelis.io Research)
  10. 90.5 SeqGenSQL+EG (Li 2020)
  11. 90.3 SeqGenSQL (Li 2020)
  12. 90.1 (Guo 2019) +Execution-Guided Decoding with BERT-Base-Uncased^
  13. 90.1 SeaD (Xu 2021) (Ant Group, Ada & ZhiXiaoBao)
  14. 89.6 SQLova +Execution-Guided Decoding (Hwang 2019)
  15. 89.5 TAPEX (Liu 2022)
  16. 89.2 (Guo 2019) with BERT-Base-Uncased^
  17. 89.2 HydraNet (Lyu 2020) (Microsoft Dynamics 365 AI) (code)
  18. 88.8 IE-SQL (Ma 2020) (Ping An Life, AI Team)
  19. 88.7 X-SQL (He 2019)
  20. 87.1 IncSQL +Execution-Guided Decoding (Shi 2018)
  21. 86.2 SQLova (Hwang 2019)
  22. 83.9 HardEM (Min 2019)
  23. 83.8 Execution-Guided Decoding (Wang 2018)
  24. 83.7 IncSQL (Shi 2018)
  25. 81.7 Auxiliary Mapping Task (Chang 2019)
  26. 81.4 MQAN (ordered) (McCann 2018)
  27. 81.4 MQAN (unordered) (McCann 2018)
  28. 79.3 LatentAlignment (Wang 2019)
  29. 78.5 Coarse2Fine (Dong 2018)
  30. 74.8 MeRL (Agarwal 2019)
  31. 73.5 TypeSQL (Yu 2018)
  32. 72.1 MAPO (Liang 2018)
  33. 69.0 (Guo 2018)
  34. 68.0 PT-MAML (Huang 2018)
  35. 68.0 SQLNet (Xu 2017)
  36. 66.8 Wang 2017^
  37. 61.0 Rule-SQL (Guo 2019)
  38. 59.4 Seq2SQL (Zhong 2017)
  39. 35.9 Baseline (Zhong 2017)
  1. 1 SeaD +Execution-Guided Decoding (Xu 2021) (Ant Group, Ada & ZhiXiaoBao) SQL generation 93%
  2. 2 SDSQL +Execution-Guided Decoding (Hui 2020) (Alibaba Group) SQL generation 92.7%
  3. 3 IE-SQL +Execution-Guided Decoding (Ma 2020) (Ping An Life, AI Team) SQL generation 92.5%
  4. 4 HydraNet +Execution-Guided Decoding (Lyu 2020) (Microsoft Dynamics 365 AI) (code) SQL generation 92.2%
  5. 5 BRIDGE^ +Execution-Guided Decoding (Lin 2020) (Salesforce Research) SQL generation 91.9%
  6. 6 X-SQL +Execution-Guided Decoding (He 2019) SQL generation 91.8%
  7. 7 SDSQL (Hui 2020) (Alibaba Group) SQL generation 91.4%
  8. 8 BRIDGE^ (Lin 2020) (Salesforce Research) SQL generation 91.1%
  9. 9 Text2SQLGen + EG (Mellah 2021) (Novelis.io Research) SQL generation 91%
  10. 10 SeqGenSQL+EG (Li 2020) SQL generation 90.5%
  11. 11 SeqGenSQL (Li 2020) SQL generation 90.3%
  12. 12 (Guo 2019) +Execution-Guided Decoding with BERT-Base-Uncased^ SQL generation 90.1%
  13. 13 SeaD (Xu 2021) (Ant Group, Ada & ZhiXiaoBao) SQL generation 90.1%
  14. 14 SQLova +Execution-Guided Decoding (Hwang 2019) SQL generation 89.6%
  15. 15 TAPEX (Liu 2022) Direct execution 89.5%
  16. 16 (Guo 2019) with BERT-Base-Uncased^ SQL generation 89.2%
  17. 17 HydraNet (Lyu 2020) (Microsoft Dynamics 365 AI) (code) SQL generation 89.2%
  18. 18 IE-SQL (Ma 2020) (Ping An Life, AI Team) SQL generation 88.8%
  19. 19 X-SQL (He 2019) SQL generation 88.7%
  20. 20 IncSQL +Execution-Guided Decoding (Shi 2018) SQL generation 87.1%
  21. 21 SQLova (Hwang 2019) SQL generation 86.2%
  22. 22 HardEM (Min 2019) Direct execution 83.9%
  23. 23 Execution-Guided Decoding (Wang 2018) SQL generation 83.8%
  24. 24 IncSQL (Shi 2018) SQL generation 83.7%
  25. 25 Auxiliary Mapping Task (Chang 2019) SQL generation 81.7%
  26. 26 MQAN (ordered) (McCann 2018) SQL generation 81.4%
  27. 27 MQAN (unordered) (McCann 2018) SQL generation 81.4%
  28. 28 LatentAlignment (Wang 2019) Direct execution 79.3%
  29. 29 Coarse2Fine (Dong 2018) SQL generation 78.5%
  30. 30 MeRL (Agarwal 2019) Direct execution 74.8%
  31. 31 TypeSQL (Yu 2018) SQL generation 73.5%
  32. 32 MAPO (Liang 2018) Direct execution 72.1%
  33. 33 (Guo 2018) SQL generation 69%
  34. 34 PT-MAML (Huang 2018) SQL generation 68%
  35. 35 SQLNet (Xu 2017) SQL generation 68%
  36. 36 Wang 2017^ SQL generation 66.8%
  37. 37 Rule-SQL (Guo 2019) Direct execution 61%
  38. 38 Seq2SQL (Zhong 2017) SQL generation 59.4%
  39. 39 Baseline (Zhong 2017) SQL generation 35.9%

Source: Official WikiSQL leaderboard

#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
1 SeaD +Execution-Guided Decoding (Xu 2021) (Ant Group, Ada & ZhiXiaoBao) 93% SQL generation Official leaderboard
2 SDSQL +Execution-Guided Decoding (Hui 2020) (Alibaba Group) 92.7% SQL generation Official leaderboard
3 IE-SQL +Execution-Guided Decoding (Ma 2020) (Ping An Life, AI Team) 92.5% SQL generation Official leaderboard
4 HydraNet +Execution-Guided Decoding (Lyu 2020) (Microsoft Dynamics 365 AI) (code) 92.2% SQL generation Official leaderboard
5 BRIDGE^ +Execution-Guided Decoding (Lin 2020) (Salesforce Research) 91.9% SQL generation Official leaderboard
6 X-SQL +Execution-Guided Decoding (He 2019) 91.8% SQL generation Official leaderboard
7 SDSQL (Hui 2020) (Alibaba Group) 91.4% SQL generation Official leaderboard
8 BRIDGE^ (Lin 2020) (Salesforce Research) 91.1% SQL generation Official leaderboard
9 Text2SQLGen + EG (Mellah 2021) (Novelis.io Research) 91% SQL generation Official leaderboard
10 SeqGenSQL+EG (Li 2020) 90.5% SQL generation Official leaderboard
11 SeqGenSQL (Li 2020) 90.3% SQL generation Official leaderboard
12 (Guo 2019) +Execution-Guided Decoding with BERT-Base-Uncased^ 90.1% SQL generation Official leaderboard
13 SeaD (Xu 2021) (Ant Group, Ada & ZhiXiaoBao) 90.1% SQL generation Official leaderboard
14 SQLova +Execution-Guided Decoding (Hwang 2019) 89.6% SQL generation Official leaderboard
15 TAPEX (Liu 2022) 89.5% Direct execution Official leaderboard
16 (Guo 2019) with BERT-Base-Uncased^ 89.2% SQL generation Official leaderboard
17 HydraNet (Lyu 2020) (Microsoft Dynamics 365 AI) (code) 89.2% SQL generation Official leaderboard
18 IE-SQL (Ma 2020) (Ping An Life, AI Team) 88.8% SQL generation Official leaderboard
19 X-SQL (He 2019) 88.7% SQL generation Official leaderboard
20 IncSQL +Execution-Guided Decoding (Shi 2018) 87.1% SQL generation Official leaderboard
21 SQLova (Hwang 2019) 86.2% SQL generation Official leaderboard
22 HardEM (Min 2019) 83.9% Direct execution Official leaderboard
23 Execution-Guided Decoding (Wang 2018) 83.8% SQL generation Official leaderboard
24 IncSQL (Shi 2018) 83.7% SQL generation Official leaderboard
25 Auxiliary Mapping Task (Chang 2019) 81.7% SQL generation Official leaderboard
26 MQAN (ordered) (McCann 2018) 81.4% SQL generation Official leaderboard
27 MQAN (unordered) (McCann 2018) 81.4% SQL generation Official leaderboard
28 LatentAlignment (Wang 2019) 79.3% Direct execution Official leaderboard
29 Coarse2Fine (Dong 2018) 78.5% SQL generation Official leaderboard
30 MeRL (Agarwal 2019) 74.8% Direct execution Official leaderboard
31 TypeSQL (Yu 2018) 73.5% SQL generation Official leaderboard
32 MAPO (Liang 2018) 72.1% Direct execution Official leaderboard
33 (Guo 2018) 69% SQL generation Official leaderboard
34 PT-MAML (Huang 2018) 68% SQL generation Official leaderboard
35 SQLNet (Xu 2017) 68% SQL generation Official leaderboard
36 Wang 2017^ 66.8% SQL generation Official leaderboard
37 Rule-SQL (Guo 2019) 61% Direct execution Official leaderboard
38 Seq2SQL (Zhong 2017) 59.4% SQL generation Official leaderboard
39 Baseline (Zhong 2017) 35.9% SQL generation Official leaderboard

No lab model card reports it yet

We read the headline results of 522 launch posts from 52 labs, and none of them list this benchmark.

More in Coding

All 282 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%
  • 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%
  • SWE-bench Multilingual In use 300 GitHub-issue tasks across nine programming languages in SWE-bench format. Patch graded by repository tests. Claude Fable 5.2 96.6%
  • 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