| 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Paid | Free |
| Capabilities | 10 decomposed | 7 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Decomposes portfolio optimization problems into quantum-solvable and classical-solvable subproblems, routing computationally hard components (e.g., quadratic unconstrained binary optimization) to quantum processors via abstraction layers while maintaining classical fallback paths. The system automatically selects between quantum annealing, variational quantum algorithms (VQE), or pure classical solvers based on problem structure and available quantum hardware, ensuring execution even when quantum resources are unavailable or underperforming.
Unique: Implements transparent quantum-classical problem decomposition with automatic solver selection based on problem structure and hardware availability, rather than forcing all optimization through a single quantum or classical path. Uses domain-specific financial constraint mapping to QUBO formulations, reducing the expertise barrier for non-quantum practitioners.
vs alternatives: Outperforms pure classical optimizers on large combinatorial problems while avoiding quantum-only solutions that fail when hardware is unavailable; more accessible than building custom quantum algorithms because financial workflows are pre-built.
Accelerates Monte Carlo risk simulations by using quantum amplitude estimation to reduce the number of classical samples needed to achieve target confidence intervals. The platform maps risk distribution sampling into quantum circuits that exploit superposition to evaluate multiple scenarios in parallel, then uses classical post-processing to extract risk metrics (Value-at-Risk, Conditional Value-at-Risk, stress test results). Falls back to classical Monte Carlo if quantum resources are constrained.
Unique: Uses quantum amplitude estimation to reduce classical sample complexity from O(1/ε²) to O(1/ε), providing quadratic speedup in sample efficiency for risk quantile estimation. Automatically switches between quantum and classical paths based on hardware availability and problem size, maintaining result consistency across execution modes.
vs alternatives: Achieves faster risk metric convergence than pure classical Monte Carlo while remaining practical on current quantum hardware; more sample-efficient than classical importance sampling for tail risk estimation.
Provides a financial domain-specific abstraction layer that maps high-level optimization and risk problems to appropriate quantum algorithms (VQE, QAOA, quantum annealing, amplitude estimation) without requiring users to understand quantum circuit design. The system analyzes problem structure (objective function type, constraint complexity, dataset size) and automatically selects the best-fit algorithm, then routes the computation to the most suitable quantum backend (IBM, D-Wave, IonQ) based on hardware capabilities and current availability.
Unique: Implements a financial domain-specific abstraction layer that hides quantum algorithm complexity behind familiar financial problem statements, using rule-based and ML-based algorithm selection to match problems to optimal quantum approaches. Supports multi-provider routing without code changes, abstracting provider-specific API differences.
vs alternatives: Eliminates the quantum expertise barrier that prevents mainstream financial adoption; more accessible than Qiskit or Cirq because it doesn't require circuit-level programming knowledge.
Implements a dual-execution architecture where every quantum computation has a corresponding classical solver that produces deterministic results. When quantum hardware is unavailable, underperforming, or returns low-confidence solutions, the system automatically falls back to classical optimization (e.g., convex solvers, metaheuristics) while maintaining API consistency. Includes result validation logic that compares quantum and classical outputs to detect anomalies and flag unreliable quantum results.
Unique: Implements transparent dual-execution with automatic fallback and result validation, ensuring users never receive undefined or unreliable results. Maintains execution consistency across quantum and classical paths through normalized output formats and confidence scoring.
vs alternatives: Provides reliability guarantees that pure quantum solutions cannot offer; more robust than quantum-only approaches because it eliminates dependency on nascent quantum hardware stability.
Provides a unified API layer that abstracts differences between quantum hardware providers (IBM Quantum, D-Wave, IonQ, Rigetti) by translating high-level problem specifications into provider-specific circuit formats, managing authentication, handling provider-specific constraints (qubit topology, gate sets, noise characteristics), and normalizing results across backends. Includes automatic circuit transpilation, qubit mapping, and error mitigation strategies tailored to each provider's hardware characteristics.
Unique: Implements a unified quantum abstraction layer that handles provider-specific circuit transpilation, qubit mapping, and error mitigation automatically, allowing users to switch providers without code changes. Normalizes results across different quantum backends despite hardware differences.
vs alternatives: More flexible than provider-locked solutions; reduces vendor lock-in and enables provider switching based on performance or cost.
Translates financial constraints (sector limits, position bounds, leverage caps, ESG criteria) into quantum-compatible mathematical formulations (QUBO, Ising models, penalty-based objectives). The system automatically detects constraint types, applies appropriate penalty functions, and adjusts penalty weights to ensure constraints are satisfied in quantum solutions. Includes domain-specific heuristics for common financial constraints (e.g., cardinality constraints, minimum position sizes) that are difficult to express in standard quantum formulations.
Unique: Implements domain-specific constraint mapping that automatically translates financial constraints into quantum-compatible formulations with automatic penalty weight tuning, rather than requiring manual QUBO construction. Includes heuristics for common financial constraints that are difficult to express in standard quantum models.
vs alternatives: More accessible than manual QUBO construction because it automates constraint encoding; more robust than generic constraint handling because it uses financial domain knowledge.
Manages the execution of quantum-classical hybrid workflows by deciding which components run on quantum hardware and which run classically based on problem structure, hardware availability, and performance targets. Uses a cost model that estimates quantum execution time, classical execution time, and communication overhead to optimize the hybrid split. Includes dynamic resource allocation that adjusts the quantum-classical split at runtime based on actual performance measurements and hardware availability.
Unique: Implements dynamic quantum-classical orchestration with runtime cost modeling that adapts the hybrid split based on actual performance measurements, rather than static pre-determined splits. Uses performance profiling to optimize resource allocation across heterogeneous compute resources.
vs alternatives: More efficient than static hybrid splits because it adapts to changing hardware availability and actual performance; more practical than pure quantum approaches because it leverages classical compute for components where quantum offers no advantage.
Evaluates the quality and reliability of quantum solutions by comparing them against classical baselines, analyzing solution variance across multiple quantum runs, and computing confidence scores based on solution proximity to known optima. Includes statistical tests to detect anomalies (e.g., solutions that violate constraints, outlier results) and flags low-confidence solutions for manual review or re-execution. Provides detailed quality metrics (optimality gap, constraint satisfaction, convergence behavior) for each solution.
Unique: Implements multi-faceted solution quality assessment combining classical baseline comparison, variance analysis, and constraint satisfaction checking to produce confidence scores. Automatically flags anomalies and provides detailed quality metrics for each solution.
vs alternatives: More rigorous than accepting quantum results at face value; provides the validation layer needed for regulated financial use cases where solution correctness is critical.
+2 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 G2Q Computing at 41/100. FinQA also has a free tier, making it more accessible.
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