| 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Paid | Free |
| Capabilities | 10 decomposed | 7 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Enables users to submit receipt photos via SMS without requiring app installation, using a dedicated phone number endpoint that receives MMS attachments and routes them to the processing pipeline. The system parses incoming MMS metadata (sender, timestamp, image MIME type) and queues images for OCR extraction, reducing friction for remote teams and non-technical users who may not install mobile apps.
Unique: SMS-first submission model eliminates app dependency entirely, using carrier infrastructure as the transport layer rather than requiring proprietary mobile app installation — a deliberate trade-off favoring accessibility over feature richness
vs alternatives: Lower barrier to entry than Expensify or Concur which require app downloads, but sacrifices real-time feedback and batch processing capabilities that app-based competitors provide
Applies optical character recognition (likely Tesseract or cloud-based vision API) to receipt images to extract structured data: merchant name, date, total amount, tax, and itemized line items with quantities and unit prices. The system likely uses template matching or regex patterns to normalize common receipt formats (retail, restaurants, fuel) and handles variable layouts by detecting key fields (currency symbols, date patterns) rather than relying on fixed-position parsing.
Unique: Combines OCR with template-based field detection to handle variable receipt layouts rather than relying on fixed-position parsing, enabling support for receipts from different merchants and POS systems without manual configuration per receipt type
vs alternatives: More accessible than building custom OCR pipelines, but likely less accurate than Expensify's proprietary ML models trained on millions of receipts; trade-off between ease of deployment and extraction accuracy
Maps extracted receipt data (merchant name, item descriptions, amounts) to standard accounting expense categories (meals, travel, office supplies, etc.) using rule-based matching and potentially lightweight ML classification. The system likely maintains a merchant database (Starbucks → meals, Uber → travel) and applies heuristics based on keywords in line items to assign GL codes or cost centers compatible with QuickBooks/Xero chart of accounts.
Unique: Uses merchant database matching combined with keyword heuristics rather than requiring manual category configuration per receipt, reducing setup friction but sacrificing accuracy for edge cases and custom business logic
vs alternatives: Simpler to deploy than building custom ML classifiers, but less intelligent than Concur's AI which learns from historical categorization patterns; suitable for standardized expense types but not complex multi-dimensional cost allocation
Establishes OAuth 2.0 authenticated connection to QuickBooks Online API and automatically pushes extracted receipt data as bill or expense transactions without manual reconciliation. The system maps Receipt AI fields (merchant, amount, category) to QuickBooks entities (Vendor, Account, Amount) and handles transaction creation, duplicate detection (by date/amount/vendor), and error handling for failed syncs with retry logic.
Unique: Direct OAuth-authenticated API integration to QuickBooks Online eliminates manual export/import steps, using QB's native transaction creation endpoints rather than CSV import or third-party middleware
vs alternatives: Tighter integration than CSV-based expense import, but less comprehensive than Expensify which handles multi-entity QB setups, custom fields, and bidirectional sync; suitable for simple expense workflows but not complex accounting scenarios
Establishes OAuth 2.0 authenticated connection to Xero API and pushes extracted receipt data as bills or expense claims, mapping Receipt AI fields to Xero entities (Contact, Account, LineItem). The system handles Xero's stricter validation rules (required contact records, account codes, tax types) and manages transaction status workflows (draft, submitted, approved) with error handling for validation failures.
Unique: Handles Xero's stricter validation model by pre-validating contacts and tax codes before sync, rather than relying on Xero's error responses — reduces failed transactions but adds latency for validation checks
vs alternatives: Native Xero integration is more reliable than third-party middleware, but less feature-rich than Xero's own expense management module; best for simple receipt-to-bill workflows, not complex multi-entity or project-based expense allocation
Analyzes extracted receipt data (merchant, date, amount, line items) to identify duplicate submissions using fuzzy matching on merchant name and exact matching on date+amount combinations. The system flags potential duplicates for user review before syncing to accounting software, preventing double-entry errors and maintaining data integrity in the accounting system.
Unique: Implements fuzzy matching on merchant names combined with exact matching on date+amount to reduce false positives, rather than relying on single-field matching which would flag legitimate receipts from the same vendor on the same day
vs alternatives: More sophisticated than simple amount-based deduplication, but less intelligent than ML-based fraud detection used by enterprise platforms; suitable for preventing accidental duplicates but not sophisticated fraud
Stores original receipt images in cloud storage (likely AWS S3 or similar) with metadata indexing (date, merchant, amount, submitter) and maintains immutable audit trail of all access and modifications. The system enables users to retrieve original receipt images for verification, dispute resolution, or tax audit purposes, with timestamped logs of who accessed what and when.
Unique: Maintains immutable audit trail of image access and modifications rather than simple storage, enabling compliance with tax audit requirements and dispute resolution workflows
vs alternatives: More compliant than basic cloud storage, but less comprehensive than enterprise document management systems; suitable for receipt retention but not complex document lifecycle management
Enables multiple team members to submit receipts with role-based access control (submitter, approver, admin) and implements approval workflows where submitted expenses require manager sign-off before syncing to accounting software. The system tracks submission status (draft, submitted, approved, rejected) and notifies approvers of pending expenses via email or in-app notifications.
Unique: Implements role-based approval workflows with status tracking rather than simple submission-to-sync, enabling governance and visibility into pending expenses before they enter accounting
vs alternatives: More structured than ad-hoc email approval, but less sophisticated than Concur or Expensify which support multi-level approval, policy enforcement, and conditional routing; suitable for simple approval workflows but not complex governance
+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 Receipt AI 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