| Ecosystem |
| 1 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 14 decomposed | 7 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Constructs and maintains a Neo4j-backed knowledge graph where entities (persons, organizations, concepts) serve as primary nodes with complete version history and temporal audit trails. Each entity stores name, type classification, observational statements, and vector embeddings. The system automatically tracks all mutations through Neo4jStorageProvider, enabling point-in-time reconstruction of entity state at any historical timestamp and supporting confidence decay calculations over time.
Unique: Implements complete temporal versioning at the entity level with automatic confidence decay calculations, rather than treating the knowledge graph as a static snapshot. Uses Neo4j's native graph structure combined with timestamp-aware queries to enable point-in-time reconstruction without separate time-series databases.
vs alternatives: Provides temporal awareness and confidence decay that vector-only memory systems (like simple RAG) lack, while maintaining graph structure advantages over flat document stores for relationship reasoning.
Manages directed relationships between entities with multi-dimensional scoring: strength (0.0-1.0 importance indicator) and confidence (0.0-1.0 certainty level). Relationships are stored as Neo4j edges with relationType classification, metadata fields, and automatic timestamp tracking. The system supports relationship creation, updates, and queries that filter by strength/confidence thresholds, enabling LLMs to reason about relationship reliability and importance.
Unique: Decouples strength (importance) from confidence (certainty) as independent dimensions, allowing LLMs to distinguish between 'this relationship is important but uncertain' vs. 'this relationship is unimportant but certain'. Implements automatic confidence decay over time using configurable half-life parameters.
vs alternatives: More sophisticated than simple triple stores that treat all relationships equally; enables probabilistic reasoning about relationship reliability without requiring external Bayesian inference systems.
Abstracts Neo4j database operations through a Neo4jStorageProvider interface, enabling potential future storage backend swaps without changing business logic. The provider handles all graph mutations, queries, vector indexing, and temporal operations. This layered architecture separates storage concerns from knowledge graph management, improving testability and maintainability. The provider implements connection pooling, transaction management, and error handling for Neo4j operations.
Unique: Implements storage abstraction through a provider interface pattern, decoupling business logic from Neo4j-specific implementation details. Enables testability through mock providers and future backend flexibility without rewriting core graph operations.
vs alternatives: More maintainable than tightly coupled Neo4j code; enables unit testing of business logic without database dependencies through mock providers.
Stores arbitrary metadata as key-value pairs on relationships, enabling custom fields beyond standard properties (strength, confidence, relationType). Metadata is unstructured and flexible, allowing LLMs to attach domain-specific information to relationships without schema changes. Metadata is queryable and included in relationship results, supporting rich relationship semantics.
Unique: Treats relationship metadata as first-class queryable properties rather than opaque blobs, enabling flexible relationship semantics without schema changes. Metadata is included in all relationship queries and results.
vs alternatives: More flexible than fixed-schema relationship properties; enables domain-specific customization without requiring schema migrations.
Provides a command-line interface for managing knowledge graphs locally without requiring MCP client integration. The CLI enables entity creation, relationship management, search, and temporal queries through terminal commands, supporting scripted workflows and local testing. The CLI uses the same underlying KnowledgeGraphManager as the MCP server, ensuring consistent behavior across interfaces.
Unique: Provides CLI interface that shares the same KnowledgeGraphManager implementation as the MCP server, ensuring consistent behavior across local and remote access patterns. Enables scripted workflows and testing without MCP client overhead.
vs alternatives: More convenient than direct Neo4j Cypher queries for common operations; enables local development without MCP server setup.
Manages system configuration through environment variables and optional config files, enabling deployment flexibility without code changes. Configuration includes Neo4j connection details, OpenAI API keys, embedding batch sizes, decay half-life parameters, and MCP server settings. The system loads configuration at startup with environment variable precedence over file-based config, supporting both development and production deployments.
Unique: Implements configuration management with environment variable precedence, enabling secure credential handling and environment-specific tuning without code changes. Supports both file-based and environment variable configuration.
vs alternatives: More flexible than hardcoded configuration; enables production deployments with proper credential separation.
Generates and caches vector embeddings for entities using OpenAI's text-embedding-3-small model through an EmbeddingJobManager that batches requests and implements exponential backoff retry logic. Embeddings are cached in Neo4j's vector index to enable semantic similarity search. The system queues embedding jobs asynchronously, allowing entity creation to proceed without blocking on embedding generation, while maintaining eventual consistency through background job processing.
Unique: Implements asynchronous embedding generation via EmbeddingJobManager with exponential backoff retry logic and in-database caching, decoupling embedding latency from entity creation. Uses Neo4j's native vector index rather than external vector databases, reducing operational complexity.
vs alternatives: Faster than synchronous embedding approaches for bulk entity creation; more cost-efficient than naive per-entity API calls through batching; simpler than external vector DB solutions by leveraging Neo4j's built-in vector capabilities.
Implements hybrid search combining vector similarity (via Neo4j vector index) and keyword matching, with an adaptive strategy selector that automatically chooses the optimal search method based on query characteristics. Semantic search uses entity embeddings to find conceptually similar entities; keyword search uses Neo4j full-text indexes for exact term matching. The system evaluates query properties (length, specificity, entity type) to route to the most effective search path.
Unique: Implements adaptive strategy selection that automatically routes queries to semantic or keyword search based on query characteristics, rather than requiring explicit user configuration. Combines Neo4j's vector index and full-text index capabilities in a single unified search interface.
vs alternatives: More intelligent than single-strategy search systems; avoids the latency overhead of always running both semantic and keyword searches by adaptively selecting the optimal path.
+6 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 memento-mcp at 31/100. memento-mcp leads on ecosystem, while FinQA is stronger on adoption and quality.
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