| 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 14 decomposed | 7 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Enables developers to define data assets as Python functions decorated with @asset, automatically constructing a directed acyclic graph (DAG) of dependencies through function parameter matching and explicit asset_deps declarations. The system parses asset definitions at load time, resolves dependencies via asset keys, and builds an in-memory graph representation that tracks lineage, partitioning schemes, and materialization requirements without requiring manual DAG specification.
Unique: Uses decorator-based asset definitions with automatic dependency inference via function parameters, eliminating explicit DAG construction code; integrates with Python's type system for IDE support and enables asset-centric rather than job-centric pipeline organization
vs alternatives: Simpler than Airflow's DAG construction and more asset-focused than dbt's model-only approach; provides automatic lineage without requiring separate metadata files
Implements a sophisticated partitioning system allowing assets to be divided across time-based (daily, hourly), static categorical, or dynamically-generated partitions, with support for multi-dimensional partitioning (e.g., date × region). The system tracks partition state, enables targeted backfills, and optimizes execution by only materializing changed partitions. Partition definitions are composable and integrate with the asset graph to automatically determine which partitions need execution.
Unique: Supports dynamic partitions that are generated at runtime via user-defined functions, enabling partition schemes that adapt to data without code changes; integrates partition state tracking directly into the asset system rather than as a separate concern
vs alternatives: More flexible than dbt's static partitioning; provides first-class support for dynamic partitions unlike Airflow's XCom-based approaches; enables efficient backfills without full DAG re-execution
Tracks asset freshness (time since last materialization) and health status (latest run success/failure) via the asset health system. Freshness policies define expected materialization intervals (e.g., daily); the system compares actual freshness against policies and marks assets as stale. Health status is queryable via GraphQL and can trigger alerts via sensors. Integration with external systems (Slack, PagerDuty) enables notifications when assets become unhealthy.
Unique: Integrates freshness policies directly into asset definitions, enabling declarative SLA enforcement; computes health status from event logs without external monitoring tools
vs alternatives: More integrated than Airflow's SLA framework; provides asset-level freshness unlike dbt's model-level approach; enables automatic health tracking without external tools
Provides AssetSelection API enabling programmatic selection of assets based on keys, tags, groups, or custom predicates. Selections can be composed (union, intersection, difference) and used to target specific assets for execution, backfills, or queries. The system resolves dependencies automatically, ensuring upstream assets are included in execution. Selections are queryable via GraphQL, enabling external systems to discover which assets will be executed.
Unique: Provides composable asset selection with automatic dependency resolution, enabling flexible targeting without code changes; selections are first-class objects queryable via GraphQL
vs alternatives: More flexible than Airflow's fixed DAG selection; enables tag-based targeting unlike dbt's model-level approach; supports composition operators for complex selections
Implements a configuration system enabling assets, resources, and jobs to accept configuration dictionaries at definition or execution time. Configuration is specified via ConfigurableResource base class or @resource decorator, with schema validation via Pydantic. Environment-specific configs are loaded from YAML files or environment variables, enabling dev/staging/prod deployments without code changes. Configuration is resolved at execution time and injected into asset context.
Unique: Integrates configuration management directly into resource definitions via ConfigurableResource, enabling schema validation and environment-specific overrides without separate config files
vs alternatives: More integrated than Airflow's Variable system; provides schema validation unlike dbt's profiles.yml; enables runtime overrides without code changes
Tracks asset versions based on code changes, enabling detection of when asset definitions change and triggering re-materialization of downstream assets. Asset lineage is reconstructed from event logs, showing data flow across the pipeline. Data contracts (input/output schemas) can be defined on assets, with validation at execution time to detect schema mismatches. Lineage is queryable via GraphQL and visualizable in the UI.
Unique: Integrates asset versioning directly into the asset system, enabling automatic detection of code changes and downstream re-materialization; tracks lineage from event logs without external tools
vs alternatives: More automated than dbt's version tracking; provides data contracts unlike Airflow; enables lineage reconstruction without external metadata stores
Captures detailed execution events (AssetMaterializationEvent, DagsterEventType) during asset computation, including execution time, data quality metrics, row counts, and custom metadata. Events are persisted to configurable event log storage (SQLite, PostgreSQL, in-memory) and queryable via GraphQL, enabling real-time monitoring, data lineage reconstruction, and post-execution analysis without requiring external observability tools.
Unique: Implements event sourcing for asset execution, storing immutable event records that enable complete reconstruction of pipeline state; integrates metadata capture directly into the execution model rather than as post-hoc logging
vs alternatives: More comprehensive than Airflow's task logs; provides structured event queries via GraphQL unlike dbt's file-based artifacts; enables real-time monitoring without external APM tools
Provides two complementary automation mechanisms: Sensors poll external systems (databases, APIs, file systems) on a configurable interval to detect changes and trigger asset materialization, while Schedules execute assets on cron expressions or custom timing logic. Both are defined as Python functions decorated with @sensor or @schedule, integrated into the asset daemon that runs continuously to evaluate automation rules and submit runs to the executor.
Unique: Unifies schedule and sensor automation under a single declarative model with shared tick tracking; sensors maintain cursor state to avoid reprocessing, enabling efficient polling of external systems
vs alternatives: More flexible than Airflow's fixed scheduling; provides built-in sensor framework unlike dbt which relies on external orchestrators; enables event-driven automation without message queues
+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 dagster at 27/100.
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