ADK Arena: Evaluating Agent Development Kits via LLM-as-a-Developer
For researchers and practitioners building LLM-powered agents, this work provides the first systematic, controlled evaluation of how framework choice affects agent performance and usability.
The paper introduces ADK Arena, an automated pipeline using an LLM coding agent to evaluate 51 Python Agent Development Kits (ADKs) across four benchmarks. Key findings include a 57% generation success rate, 5.6× cost variation across frameworks, no single dominant framework, and that documentation, source code, and parametric knowledge are largely substitutable for framework usage.
The rapid proliferation of Agent Development Kits (ADKs), SDK-level frameworks for building LLM-powered autonomous agents, has outpaced any empirical understanding of how framework choice affects agent performance. We propose \textbf{LLM-as-a-Developer}, a methodology that replaces human developers with an LLM coding agent that learns each framework's API from documentation, writes agent code, and iteratively repairs it through a validate-and-feedback loop until tests pass. By holding the developer constant and varying only the framework, generation effort becomes a quantitative proxy for API usability and the resulting agents provide a controlled measure of framework effectiveness. We implement this in \textbf{ADK Arena}, a fully automated pipeline with per-framework Docker isolation, a three-level validation pipeline, and benchmark adapters for SWE-bench, $τ^2$-bench, Terminal-Bench, and MCP-Atlas. Evaluating all 51 popular Python ADK frameworks (204 agent--benchmark pairs), we find that: (1)~generation succeeds for 57\% of runs, and its cost varies 5.6$\times$ across frameworks (\$0.6 to \$3.4 per agent), a quantitative proxy for API complexity, though cost alone does not predict success; (2)~no single framework dominates: the best single-benchmark ADK agents resolve up to 80\% of tasks and can even \emph{beat} general-purpose frontier coding agents at a fraction of the cost, yet the median framework resolves only 32\%; (3)~across information-source ablations, genuine framework usage stays within a narrow 28--40\% band (highest with raw source access and still 33\% with no reference material at all), indicating that documentation, source code, and parametric knowledge are largely substitutable rather than any one being a hard bottleneck.