| Ecosystem | 0 | 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 6 decomposed | 7 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Analyzes historical OHLCV (open, high, low, close, volume) data and technical indicators using ensemble machine learning models (likely LSTM, gradient boosting, or hybrid architectures) to generate forward-looking price predictions and trend direction probabilities. The system ingests aggregated market data, applies feature engineering for volatility, momentum, and mean-reversion signals, then outputs probabilistic forecasts with confidence intervals across multiple timeframes (daily, weekly, monthly).
Unique: Provides institutional-grade ML forecasting (typically reserved for hedge funds and quant firms) to retail investors at zero cost, likely using aggregated/delayed market data and simplified feature sets to reduce computational overhead while maintaining predictive signal
vs alternatives: Eliminates cost barriers vs. Bloomberg Terminal, FactSet, or proprietary trading platforms, but trades real-time data access and model transparency for accessibility
Scans historical price and volume data across stocks, indices, commodities, and cryptocurrencies to identify statistical anomalies, unusual correlations, and recurring chart patterns (head-and-shoulders, triangles, breakouts) using unsupervised learning or rule-based pattern matching. The system flags deviations from normal trading behavior (e.g., volume spikes, volatility compression, correlation breakdowns) that may signal emerging opportunities or risks, outputting ranked alerts by statistical significance.
Unique: Applies unsupervised anomaly detection and rule-based pattern matching across multiple asset classes simultaneously, reducing manual chart scanning burden; likely uses statistical distance metrics (z-score, isolation forests) or template matching rather than deep learning to maintain interpretability and speed
vs alternatives: Faster and cheaper than hiring a technical analyst to manually screen charts, but less nuanced than human pattern recognition and prone to false positives in choppy markets
Aggregates and analyzes alternative data sources (social media mentions, news sentiment, options flow, insider transactions, or fund flows) to generate market sentiment scores and contrarian signals. The system applies NLP or rule-based scoring to quantify bullish/bearish sentiment, identifies when sentiment diverges from price action (e.g., extreme pessimism at market bottoms), and surfaces contrarian opportunities where crowd positioning may be crowded or extreme.
Unique: Synthesizes multiple alternative data streams (social, news, options, flows) into unified sentiment scores rather than relying solely on price/volume; likely uses weighted NLP scoring or rule-based aggregation to surface contrarian extremes where crowd positioning diverges from fundamentals
vs alternatives: Cheaper and more accessible than institutional sentiment platforms (Sentdex, Koyfin, Refinitiv), but likely lower data quality and less frequent updates than premium alternatives
Analyzes a user's portfolio holdings to decompose risk across asset classes, sectors, and geographies, and identifies hidden correlations and concentration risks. The system ingests a portfolio snapshot (holdings, weights, or transaction history), calculates pairwise correlations between assets, performs factor analysis to identify common drivers of returns, and surfaces concentration risks (e.g., overweight to tech, currency exposure, or single-country risk) that may not be obvious from raw holdings.
Unique: Decomposes portfolio risk across multiple dimensions (asset class, sector, geography, factor) simultaneously, surfacing hidden correlations and concentration risks that simple diversification metrics miss; likely uses covariance matrix calculations and principal component analysis to identify dominant risk drivers
vs alternatives: More accessible and free vs. Morningstar Premium, Vanguard Portfolio Review, or robo-advisor risk dashboards, but lacks personalized rebalancing recommendations and real-time portfolio monitoring
Enables users to construct custom scenarios (e.g., interest rate hikes, earnings misses, sector rotation) and simulate their impact on portfolio returns, asset prices, or market indices. The system applies parametric or Monte Carlo simulation methods to model how changes in macro variables (rates, inflation, GDP growth) or micro variables (earnings, margins, valuations) propagate through asset prices, outputting probability distributions of outcomes and sensitivity rankings showing which variables matter most.
Unique: Abstracts away complex financial modeling by providing templated scenario builders and automated sensitivity analysis, likely using parametric or Monte Carlo simulation engines with pre-built relationships between macro variables and asset prices, reducing barrier to entry for non-quant investors
vs alternatives: More user-friendly than building models in Excel or Python, but less flexible and transparent than custom modeling frameworks; lacks ability to model complex feedback loops or regime-dependent relationships
Ingests and normalizes market data (prices, volumes, spreads, order book depth) from multiple exchanges and data providers, handling format differences, latency variations, and data quality issues to present a unified, clean view. The system applies data validation rules to detect stale quotes, crossed markets, or obvious errors, and provides standardized OHLCV data, bid-ask spreads, and volume metrics across stocks, indices, commodities, and crypto in a consistent format.
Unique: Abstracts away complexity of managing multiple exchange APIs and data formats by providing unified, normalized market data access; likely uses ETL pipelines to ingest, validate, and standardize data from multiple sources, with fallback logic to handle provider outages or latency spikes
vs alternatives: Simpler and cheaper than managing direct exchange connections or premium data providers (Bloomberg, Reuters), but trades real-time latency and data depth for accessibility and ease of use
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 Global Predictions Inc at 38/100.
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