| 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 7 decomposed | 7 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Accepts free-form natural language queries about companies and returns structured company intelligence by translating user intent into database lookups and aggregated data sources. The system likely uses semantic understanding to map conversational queries (e.g., 'What's Apple's revenue trend?') to specific financial metrics and company attributes, then retrieves and synthesizes results from multiple underlying data sources without requiring users to learn terminal syntax or specific query languages.
Unique: Eliminates terminal-style query syntax by using conversational NLP to map free-form questions directly to financial data lookups, lowering the barrier to entry compared to Bloomberg terminals or SEC Edgar's structured search interface
vs alternatives: Faster onboarding than traditional financial terminals because users ask questions in natural language rather than learning proprietary query syntax or database schemas
Integrates company data from multiple sources (likely SEC filings, company websites, financial databases) into a unified query interface, abstracting away the need for users to manually visit separate platforms. The system maintains connectors or ETL pipelines to ingest and normalize data from heterogeneous sources, then serves unified responses that cite or blend information from multiple origins.
Unique: Abstracts away manual source-switching by maintaining ETL pipelines to ingest and normalize SEC filings, company websites, and financial databases into a unified query layer, whereas competitors like Yahoo Finance or Seeking Alpha require users to navigate separate sections for each data type
vs alternatives: Reduces research friction compared to manually cross-referencing SEC Edgar, company investor relations pages, and financial databases because all data is accessible through a single conversational interface
Retrieves and presents company financial metrics (revenue, market cap, P/E ratio, debt levels, employee count, etc.) with historical snapshots to show trends over time. The system stores or accesses time-series financial data, likely from quarterly/annual SEC filings or financial data providers, and can surface how metrics have evolved across multiple reporting periods.
Unique: Surfaces historical financial trends through conversational queries rather than requiring users to manually pull and compare multiple SEC filings or use spreadsheet-based analysis, making trend analysis accessible to non-technical investors
vs alternatives: More accessible than SEC Edgar for trend analysis because users ask 'How has Apple's revenue grown?' in natural language rather than manually downloading and comparing 10-Q filings across years
Generates concise, human-readable company overviews by synthesizing business descriptions, industry classification, key products/services, and leadership information from multiple sources. The system likely uses text generation or template-based synthesis to create coherent company profiles that combine structured data (industry, employee count) with narrative content (business model, competitive positioning).
Unique: Generates natural-language company overviews through synthesis rather than serving static company descriptions, allowing dynamic profile generation tailored to user queries, whereas competitors like Crunchbase serve pre-written profiles
vs alternatives: Faster company research than reading SEC filings or company websites because synthesized summaries distill key information into conversational responses without requiring users to navigate dense documents
Maintains conversation context across multiple turns, allowing users to ask follow-up questions about a company without re-specifying the company name or context. The system likely stores the current conversation state (company in focus, previously retrieved metrics) and uses it to interpret subsequent queries, enabling natural dialogue flow.
Unique: Maintains multi-turn conversation context to enable natural follow-up questions without re-specifying company names, whereas stateless financial lookup tools require users to re-enter company identifiers with each query
vs alternatives: More natural research flow than stateless tools like Yahoo Finance search because users can ask 'What about their debt levels?' after asking about revenue, without re-specifying the company
Provides free access to core company lookup and summarization features with usage quotas or rate limits, while premium tiers unlock higher query volumes, advanced filtering, or additional data sources. The system implements quota tracking and tier enforcement at the API or session level to differentiate free vs. paid users.
Unique: Removes financial barriers to entry by offering free access to core company research features, whereas Bloomberg terminals and institutional data providers require expensive subscriptions upfront, making financial research accessible to retail investors
vs alternatives: Lower barrier to entry than Bloomberg or FactSet because free tier allows casual users to explore company data without commitment, though premium features and pricing are not clearly communicated
Resolves company names or tickers to specific entities, handling ambiguity when multiple companies share similar names or when users provide partial/misspelled identifiers. The system likely uses fuzzy matching, ticker resolution, or entity disambiguation to map user input to canonical company records in the underlying database.
Unique: Handles company name ambiguity and partial matches through fuzzy matching rather than requiring exact ticker input, making company lookup more forgiving for non-expert users compared to terminal-style tools that require precise tickers
vs alternatives: More user-friendly than ticker-only lookup because users can search by company name and the system resolves to the correct entity, whereas Bloomberg terminals require users to know exact ticker symbols
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 StonksGPT at 40/100.
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