| 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 10 decomposed | 7 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Weave implements a reactive programming model where UI components automatically re-render when underlying data changes, using a dependency graph that tracks data mutations and propagates updates to dependent views. The system uses Python decorators and context managers to establish bindings between data objects and their visual representations, eliminating manual state management boilerplate.
Unique: Uses Python-native decorators and context managers to establish reactive bindings without requiring a separate DSL or template language, allowing developers to write reactive logic in pure Python
vs alternatives: More lightweight than Streamlit for complex interactivity because it tracks fine-grained data dependencies rather than re-running entire scripts on state changes
Weave provides a component model where UI elements are composed hierarchically, each with isolated local state that can be lifted to parent components or shared globally. Components use a props-based interface for data flow and emit events for parent communication, implementing a unidirectional data flow pattern similar to React but with Python-native syntax.
Unique: Implements component composition using Python classes with decorator-based lifecycle hooks, avoiding the need for JSX or template syntax while maintaining React-like component semantics
vs alternatives: More composable than Streamlit's widget model because components can be nested and reused with isolated state, whereas Streamlit treats all widgets as imperative statements in a single execution flow
Weave includes a schema system that allows developers to define strongly-typed data structures using Python type hints and dataclass-like syntax, with automatic validation, serialization, and deserialization. The schema system integrates with the reactive binding layer to ensure type safety across data mutations and UI updates.
Unique: Integrates schema validation directly with the reactive binding system, ensuring that type violations trigger validation errors before propagating to dependent UI components
vs alternatives: Simpler than Pydantic for basic use cases because it leverages Python's native type hints without requiring separate validator decorators, though less feature-rich for complex validation rules
Weave provides built-in components and utilities for exploring datasets interactively, including table views with sorting/filtering, drill-down navigation into nested data, and dynamic query building. The system tracks exploration state (current filters, sort order, selected rows) reactively, allowing users to compose complex queries without writing SQL or pandas code.
Unique: Implements exploration state as reactive data bindings, so filter/sort operations automatically update all dependent views (charts, summaries, exports) without explicit re-query logic
vs alternatives: More interactive than Jupyter notebooks because state persists across cell executions and UI interactions trigger reactive updates, whereas notebooks require manual re-execution
Weave integrates with visualization libraries (Plotly, Matplotlib, Vega) and wraps them in reactive components that automatically re-render when underlying data changes. Developers can compose multiple visualizations that share data sources, and interactions in one chart (e.g., selecting a range) automatically filter data in dependent charts.
Unique: Wraps visualization libraries in reactive components that automatically re-render on data changes and propagate chart interactions (selections, hovers) back to the data layer for cross-chart filtering
vs alternatives: More composable than Plotly Dash because visualizations are components with isolated state rather than callbacks, reducing boilerplate for multi-chart interactions
Weave provides utilities for calling backend functions (Python, REST APIs, or serverless functions) from UI components with automatic loading states, error handling, and result caching. The system supports async/await syntax and integrates with the reactive binding layer to update UI when backend calls complete.
Unique: Integrates async function calls directly into the reactive binding system, so backend results automatically trigger dependent component updates without explicit callback management
vs alternatives: Simpler than managing async state manually in Streamlit because loading states and error handling are built-in to the function calling abstraction
Weave can automatically generate interactive forms from data schemas, with built-in validation, error messages, and type-specific input widgets (text fields, dropdowns, date pickers). Form state is reactive, so validation errors update in real-time as users type, and form submission triggers backend operations with automatic loading states.
Unique: Generates forms directly from Python type hints and dataclass definitions, with real-time validation integrated into the reactive binding system so errors update as users type
vs alternatives: Faster to prototype than building forms manually because schema-driven generation eliminates boilerplate, though less flexible than hand-coded forms for complex UI requirements
Weave provides a state management system that tracks all data mutations in an application, enabling undo/redo functionality by replaying state changes. The system uses an immutable data model internally, so state changes create new snapshots rather than mutating objects in-place, allowing efficient time-travel debugging and state recovery.
Unique: Implements undo/redo by tracking immutable state snapshots in the reactive binding layer, so all dependent components automatically update when traveling through history without explicit re-render logic
vs alternatives: More automatic than Redux because undo/redo is built-in to the state management system rather than requiring middleware configuration
+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 weave at 21/100.
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