| 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 12 decomposed | 7 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Ingests real-time and historical OHLCV data alongside market sentiment indicators (social media, news sentiment scores, options flow) and fuses them through a learned weighting model to generate buy/sell signals. The system likely uses ensemble methods (random forests, gradient boosting, or neural networks) trained on historical price movements to assign confidence scores to each signal. Signals are surfaced with visual chart overlays showing entry/exit zones and probability estimates, making the underlying model decisions interpretable to retail users.
Unique: Combines price-volume-sentiment in a single ensemble model rather than treating them as separate indicators; likely uses learned feature importance weighting rather than fixed technical indicator formulas, making it adaptive to market regime changes. The visual overlay approach (signals directly on charts) reduces cognitive load vs. separate indicator windows.
vs alternatives: More interpretable than black-box neural networks (shows which factors drove each signal) and faster to execute than manual multi-indicator analysis, but less transparent than traditional technical analysis rules and unvalidated against live trading performance.
Uses supervised learning models (likely LSTM, GRU, or transformer-based architectures) trained on historical price sequences to forecast future price movements over specified horizons (1-hour, 1-day, 1-week ahead). The model outputs point estimates plus confidence intervals or probability distributions, allowing users to quantify uncertainty. Predictions are likely retrained on a rolling window (e.g., daily or weekly) to adapt to recent market behavior. The system may employ ensemble methods (averaging multiple model architectures) to reduce overfitting.
Unique: Outputs explicit confidence intervals or probability distributions rather than point estimates alone, allowing users to quantify forecast uncertainty. Likely uses ensemble methods (multiple architectures averaged) to reduce overfitting and improve generalization. The rolling retraining approach adapts to recent market regimes rather than using static models.
vs alternatives: More transparent about uncertainty than simple point forecasts, and adaptive retraining is better than static models, but still subject to fundamental limits of financial forecasting — no model can reliably predict prices beyond noise levels without structural market knowledge or insider information.
Provides recommendations for position sizing based on account size, risk tolerance, and volatility of the stock. The system may use Kelly criterion, fixed fractional sizing, or volatility-adjusted sizing to compute a recommended position size. It also calculates and displays risk metrics (max loss if stop loss is hit, risk-reward ratio) for each potential trade. The system may alert users if they're about to take on excessive risk (e.g., risking >2% of account on a single trade). However, based on the editorial summary, this capability may be limited or missing in the current product.
Unique: Integrates position sizing guidance with AI signals, allowing users to see recommended position sizes for each signal without manual calculation. Volatility-adjusted sizing adapts to market conditions (high volatility → smaller positions). Risk alerts provide guardrails to prevent over-leveraging.
vs alternatives: More integrated than standalone position sizing calculators, and volatility-adjusted sizing is more sophisticated than fixed fractional sizing. However, still relies on user discipline to follow recommendations; no hard enforcement of position limits.
Provides a native mobile app (iOS and Android) with a simplified UI optimized for small screens. The app displays watchlists, portfolio P&L, and AI signals with real-time updates via push notifications. The app may support offline access to cached data (last known prices, historical charts) when network connectivity is unavailable. The app likely uses a mobile-specific charting library (TradingView Lightweight Charts Mobile or custom WebGL renderer) for performance. Authentication is handled via biometric (Face ID, Touch ID) or PIN for security.
Unique: Optimizes UI for mobile screens with simplified layouts and touch-friendly controls. Offline caching allows users to view cached data and charts without network connectivity. Biometric authentication provides security without requiring password entry on mobile.
vs alternatives: More convenient than web app for on-the-go monitoring, and push notifications are more timely than email alerts. However, smaller screen real estate limits the amount of information displayed, and offline data may be stale.
Renders candlestick or OHLC charts with overlaid AI-generated signals, support/resistance zones, and confidence heatmaps. The visualization layer likely uses a charting library (TradingView Lightweight Charts, Chart.js, or Plotly) with custom WebGL rendering for performance at high data densities. Signals are drawn as arrows, zones, or colored regions with tooltips showing model reasoning (e.g., 'BUY: 70% confidence from price+volume fusion'). Users can interact with annotations to drill into the underlying data or adjust signal thresholds in real-time.
Unique: Integrates AI signal overlays directly into the charting layer rather than as separate indicator windows, reducing context switching. Likely uses WebGL or Canvas for high-performance rendering of dense signal annotations. Tooltips and drill-down interactions provide model transparency without cluttering the main chart.
vs alternatives: More integrated and visually coherent than TradingView's separate indicator panes, and faster to render than server-side chart generation. Less customizable than professional trading platforms (Bloomberg, Refinitiv) but more accessible to retail users.
Allows users to test AI signals against historical price data using a backtesting framework that simulates order execution, slippage, and commissions. The engine likely implements walk-forward validation (training on historical window, testing on subsequent out-of-sample period, rolling forward) to avoid look-ahead bias. Performance metrics include win rate, Sharpe ratio, max drawdown, and profit factor. The system may support Monte Carlo simulations to assess robustness under different market conditions or parameter perturbations.
Unique: Implements walk-forward validation (out-of-sample testing) rather than simple historical backtesting, reducing look-ahead bias. Likely includes Monte Carlo simulations to assess robustness under parameter perturbations. Transparent reporting of slippage and commission assumptions makes results more realistic than naive backtests.
vs alternatives: More rigorous than simple buy-and-hold comparisons, and walk-forward validation is more honest than in-sample optimization. However, still subject to fundamental backtesting limitations (execution assumptions, regime changes, survivorship bias) that make live results typically worse than backtest results.
Ingests tick-level or minute-level price data from one or more market data providers (broker APIs, third-party data vendors, or direct exchange feeds) and normalizes it into a unified OHLCV format. The system handles data quality issues (missing candles, duplicate ticks, out-of-order messages) through validation and reconciliation logic. Data is cached locally (in-memory or database) for fast retrieval and backtesting. The ingestion pipeline likely runs asynchronously to avoid blocking the UI or signal generation.
Unique: Normalizes data from multiple sources into a unified OHLCV format, allowing users to switch providers without rewriting analysis code. Asynchronous ingestion prevents data fetching from blocking signal generation or UI rendering. Data quality validation (gap detection, duplicate removal) is likely automated rather than manual.
vs alternatives: More robust than single-provider solutions because it can failover or aggregate data from multiple sources. Faster than synchronous REST APIs because it uses streaming (WebSocket or Server-Sent Events). More accessible than direct exchange feeds because it abstracts away exchange-specific protocols.
Implements a subscription tier system where free users have access to basic signals and limited historical data, while premium users unlock advanced models, longer backtesting windows, and higher-frequency signal updates. Access control is enforced at the API level (checking user subscription status before returning data) and UI level (hiding premium features behind paywalls or trial prompts). The system likely tracks feature usage (API calls, backtests run, charts viewed) to enforce rate limits on free tier and upsell premium features when usage approaches limits.
Unique: Combines API-level and UI-level access control to prevent free users from accessing premium data through API calls or browser dev tools. Usage tracking and rate limiting are enforced server-side rather than client-side, making them tamper-proof. Upsell prompts are contextual (triggered when users approach rate limits) rather than aggressive.
vs alternatives: More transparent than hidden paywalls (users know what's free vs. paid upfront), and server-side enforcement is more secure than client-side gating. However, aggressive feature gating can harm conversion if free tier is too limited to demonstrate value.
+4 more capabilities
Enables evaluation of AI systems' ability to perform chained mathematical operations (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, comparisons) across both structured tables and unstructured text extracted from SEC filings. The dataset provides ground-truth question-answer pairs where answers require synthesizing data from multiple locations within earnings reports and applying sequential arithmetic operations, testing whether models can decompose complex financial queries into discrete computational steps.
Unique: Combines real SEC filing documents (not synthetic) with crowdsourced questions requiring multi-step arithmetic, creating a hybrid dataset that tests both domain knowledge extraction and quantitative reasoning in a single evaluation task. Unlike generic math word problems, answers require locating figures within 10+ page documents first.
vs alternatives: More challenging than DROP or SVAMP because it requires financial domain knowledge AND document retrieval before arithmetic, whereas generic math benchmarks assume figures are already extracted
Assesses whether AI systems understand financial terminology, accounting concepts, and domain-specific metrics by requiring them to answer questions about real earnings reports from S&P 500 companies. The dataset tests recognition of financial line items (revenue, COGS, operating expenses, net income), ability to distinguish between different financial statements (income statement vs balance sheet), and understanding of financial ratios and metrics without explicit instruction on their definitions.
Unique: Uses authentic SEC filings rather than synthetic financial data, exposing models to real-world accounting variations, footnote complexity, and the actual structure of professional financial documents. This tests transfer learning from general text to specialized domain without domain-specific pretraining.
vs alternatives: More authentic than synthetic financial QA datasets because it uses real earnings reports with their inherent complexity, but narrower than general financial knowledge benchmarks because it focuses only on historical data interpretation
FinQA scores higher at 60/100 vs BlackHedge at 43/100.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
Enables evaluation of AI systems' ability to extract numerical data from both structured HTML/text tables and unstructured prose within the same document, then reason over the extracted values. The dataset contains questions where relevant data appears in different formats — some figures are in formatted tables with clear row/column headers, while others are embedded in narrative text or footnotes — requiring robust parsing and entity linking before computation can occur.
Unique: Combines structured table data with unstructured narrative in the same evaluation, forcing systems to handle format heterogeneity and resolve references across different data representations. Most table QA datasets use clean, isolated tables; this tests real-world document complexity.
vs alternatives: More realistic than isolated table QA benchmarks (like SQA or WikiTableQuestions) because it requires handling narrative context and format mixing, but simpler than full document understanding because tables are already in text format (no OCR needed)
Provides a curated, crowdsourced-annotated dataset of 8,281 question-answer pairs with multi-step reasoning requirements, enabling systematic evaluation of AI systems on financial numerical reasoning. The dataset includes quality control mechanisms through crowdworker annotation, answer validation against ground truth, and coverage across diverse financial metrics and company types within the S&P 500, creating a reproducible evaluation standard for the financial AI community.
Unique: Provides a publicly available, reproducible benchmark specifically designed for financial numerical reasoning with real SEC filings, enabling standardized comparison across different financial AI systems. Most financial datasets are proprietary or synthetic; this is open-source and authentic.
vs alternatives: More specialized and challenging than generic QA benchmarks (SQuAD, MRQA) because it requires financial domain knowledge and multi-step arithmetic, but narrower in scope than comprehensive financial understanding benchmarks because it focuses only on numerical reasoning
Assesses AI systems' ability to perform multi-hop reasoning by requiring them to locate and combine information from different sections of earnings reports. Questions may require finding a figure in the income statement, then locating a related metric in the balance sheet, then performing arithmetic across both — testing whether models can maintain context across document boundaries and understand relationships between different financial statement sections.
Unique: Embeds multi-hop reasoning requirements within authentic financial documents where hops correspond to real relationships between financial statement sections, rather than synthetic reasoning chains. This tests whether models understand domain structure, not just generic multi-hop patterns.
vs alternatives: More realistic than synthetic multi-hop datasets (HotpotQA, 2WikiMultiHopQA) because reasoning hops follow actual financial relationships, but less controlled because document structure varies and reasoning paths are implicit rather than explicitly annotated
Enables evaluation of whether AI systems can identify which arithmetic operations (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, comparison) are required to answer financial questions, then execute them correctly. The dataset implicitly tests operation selection — a question asking 'what is the profit margin' requires division (net income / revenue), while 'what is total assets' requires addition — forcing models to understand financial semantics before applying math.
Unique: Embeds arithmetic operation selection within financial domain context, requiring models to understand that 'margin' semantically maps to division and 'total' maps to addition. This tests semantic grounding of operations, not just arithmetic execution.
vs alternatives: More semantically grounded than generic math word problem datasets because operation selection is implicit in financial terminology, but less explicit than datasets with annotated operation types because operations must be inferred
Provides evaluation capability for AI systems to compare financial metrics across multiple S&P 500 companies or aggregate metrics across different time periods within the same company's earnings reports. While individual questions reference single documents, the dataset structure enables evaluation of systems that can retrieve and compare relevant companies, requiring understanding of which metrics are comparable across entities and how to normalize for company size or accounting differences.
Unique: Provides a foundation for evaluating cross-company financial comparison by including diverse S&P 500 companies with different business models and scales, enabling assessment of whether systems can normalize and compare metrics appropriately. Most financial QA datasets focus on single-document questions.
vs alternatives: Enables cross-company evaluation unlike single-document QA datasets, but requires external retrieval and comparison logic because the dataset itself contains only single-document questions