| 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 11 decomposed | 7 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Analyzes incoming bank transactions using natural language processing and merchant metadata to automatically assign accounting categories (e.g., 'Office Supplies', 'Client Meals', 'Software Subscriptions'). The system learns from user corrections over time, building a transaction pattern model specific to each business. Reduces manual categorization time by 80-90% compared to manual entry, with confidence scoring to flag ambiguous transactions for review.
Unique: Uses adaptive learning from user corrections to build business-specific categorization models rather than relying on static merchant databases, enabling accuracy improvement over time without manual rule configuration
vs alternatives: Faster categorization accuracy than QuickBooks' rule-based system because it learns from your specific spending patterns rather than generic merchant mappings
Matches transactions from connected bank accounts and credit cards against recorded accounting entries using fuzzy matching on amount, date, and merchant metadata. Identifies unmatched transactions, duplicate entries, and timing discrepancies (e.g., pending vs. cleared). Generates reconciliation reports highlighting variances and suggesting corrections. Uses probabilistic matching algorithms to handle slight amount variations, date shifts, and merchant name inconsistencies across systems.
Unique: Implements probabilistic fuzzy matching with configurable tolerance thresholds for amount, date, and merchant name rather than requiring exact matches, reducing false negatives from minor data inconsistencies across systems
vs alternatives: Faster reconciliation than manual methods or rule-based systems because it learns matching patterns from your historical reconciliations and adapts to your bank's specific naming conventions
Generates tax compliance reports required for filing (Schedule C for self-employed, corporate tax forms, sales tax summaries). Calculates quarterly estimated tax payments based on year-to-date income and expenses. Tracks tax deadlines and sends reminders. Supports multiple tax jurisdictions (federal, state, local) with jurisdiction-specific rules. Exports data in formats compatible with tax software (TurboTax, TaxAct) or CPA submission.
Unique: Embeds tax form requirements and jurisdiction-specific rules directly into the reporting engine, automatically generating compliant tax reports from categorized transactions without requiring manual form completion
vs alternatives: More proactive than year-end tax software because it calculates quarterly estimates throughout the year, enabling tax planning and payment adjustments rather than surprises at filing time
Analyzes categorized transactions to identify tax-deductible expenses and suggest optimization strategies (e.g., 'Home office supplies are 100% deductible; consider bundling with utilities for Section 179 depreciation'). Uses tax code knowledge (IRS, state-specific rules) embedded in the system to flag missed deductions and calculate estimated tax liability. Provides guidance without requiring CPA consultation, though recommendations are informational only.
Unique: Embeds IRS tax code rules and deduction eligibility criteria directly into the categorization engine, enabling real-time deduction suggestions as transactions are categorized rather than requiring separate tax planning review at year-end
vs alternatives: Proactive deduction discovery during the year beats TurboTax/H&R Block's reactive approach because it flags missed deductions before filing, allowing time to adjust spending or gather documentation
Aggregates data from multiple connected bank accounts, credit cards, and accounting records to generate real-time financial reports (P&L, balance sheet, cash flow). Displays dashboards with key metrics (revenue, expenses, profit margin, cash position) updated as transactions are processed. Uses data warehouse patterns to normalize heterogeneous account data into a unified reporting schema, enabling cross-account analytics without manual consolidation.
Unique: Normalizes heterogeneous account data (different banks, payment processors, credit cards) into a unified reporting schema using ETL patterns, enabling cross-account analytics without manual data consolidation or pivot tables
vs alternatives: Faster report generation than QuickBooks because it aggregates data in real-time rather than requiring manual bank downloads and reconciliation before report generation
Connects to bank accounts, credit cards, and payment processors (Stripe, PayPal, Square) using OAuth and fintech aggregation APIs (Plaid, Stripe Connect, etc.). Automatically pulls transaction data, account balances, and metadata without requiring manual CSV exports or API key management. Handles authentication, token refresh, and error recovery transparently. Supports multiple account types (checking, savings, credit, merchant accounts) with unified transaction normalization.
Unique: Abstracts multiple fintech APIs (Plaid for banks, Stripe Connect for merchant accounts, PayPal API for seller accounts) behind a unified integration layer, normalizing heterogeneous transaction formats into a single schema without requiring users to manage multiple API keys
vs alternatives: Simpler setup than QuickBooks because it uses OAuth-based authentication instead of requiring users to provide banking credentials directly, reducing security risk and improving user trust
Identifies recurring transactions (subscriptions, rent, payroll, loan payments) by analyzing transaction history for patterns (same amount, same merchant, regular intervals). Automatically creates recurring journal entries or flags them for approval. Uses time-series analysis and clustering algorithms to detect patterns with configurable sensitivity (e.g., 'exact match' vs. 'within 5% variance'). Reduces manual data entry for predictable expenses.
Unique: Uses time-series clustering and interval analysis to detect recurring patterns with configurable variance tolerance, enabling detection of subscriptions with slight amount variations (e.g., monthly SaaS fees that vary by 1-2%) rather than requiring exact matches
vs alternatives: More accurate than manual review because it analyzes full transaction history statistically rather than relying on user memory or manual pattern recognition
Accepts receipt images (photos, PDFs, email attachments) and uses optical character recognition (OCR) to extract key fields (vendor, amount, date, category, tax amount). Matches extracted data to existing transactions for automatic reconciliation or creates new entries if unmatched. Stores receipt images as audit trail documentation. Supports batch upload and email-to-receipt forwarding for hands-free capture.
Unique: Combines OCR with transaction matching logic to automatically link receipt data to bank transactions, creating a complete audit trail without manual reconciliation between receipt and transaction records
vs alternatives: More convenient than Expensify or Concur because it integrates receipt capture directly into the accounting workflow rather than requiring separate expense report submission
+3 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 Reconcile at 44/100.
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