Trading Literacy vs TrendRadar
Side-by-side comparison to help you choose.
| Feature | Trading Literacy | TrendRadar |
|---|---|---|
| Type | Product | MCP Server |
| UnfragileRank | 28/100 | 51/100 |
| Adoption | 0 | 0 |
| Quality | 0 | 1 |
| Ecosystem |
| 0 |
| 1 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Paid | Free |
| Capabilities | 9 decomposed | 13 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Accepts natural language questions about trading activity and portfolio performance, processing them through an LLM-based conversational interface that interprets trader intent and generates contextual responses. The system maintains conversation state across multiple turns, allowing follow-up questions and drill-downs into specific trades or time periods without requiring users to re-upload or re-specify their data context. This differs from traditional dashboard analytics by treating the portfolio as a conversational subject rather than a static visualization.
Unique: Uses multi-turn conversational LLM with persistent portfolio context rather than stateless query-response pattern; maintains trader intent across follow-up questions without requiring data re-submission or context re-specification
vs alternatives: More accessible than traditional portfolio analytics dashboards (no SQL/charting literacy required) and more behavioral-focused than algorithmic trading platforms that optimize for alpha prediction
Analyzes sequences of trades to identify recurring behavioral patterns — such as revenge trading after losses, overtrading in specific market conditions, or systematic bias toward certain asset classes. The system likely uses statistical aggregation and LLM-based narrative synthesis to surface patterns that would require manual review across hundreds of trades. This capability bridges quantitative metrics (win rate, drawdown) with qualitative behavioral insights (emotional decision-making, discipline lapses).
Unique: Combines quantitative trade sequence analysis with LLM-driven narrative interpretation to surface behavioral patterns that pure statistical dashboards miss; focuses on trader psychology rather than market prediction
vs alternatives: Addresses the emotional/behavioral component of trading performance that algorithmic platforms ignore, positioning itself as a coach rather than a signal generator
Accepts trading data uploads in multiple formats (CSV, JSON, broker statements) and normalizes them into a standardized internal schema for analysis. The system likely performs format detection, field mapping, and data validation to handle variations in how different brokers export trade records. This is a critical integration point that avoids the friction of direct broker API connections but requires users to manually export and upload their data.
Unique: Supports multi-format ingestion with automatic normalization rather than requiring broker API connections; trades convenience of real-time data for accessibility to users across all brokers
vs alternatives: Lower barrier to entry than platforms requiring broker API keys, but introduces data staleness and manual workflow friction compared to direct API integrations used by competitors
Computes standard trading performance metrics (win rate, profit factor, Sharpe ratio, maximum drawdown, average trade duration) from uploaded trade data and contextualizes them through conversational explanation. Rather than displaying raw numbers, the system explains what each metric means, how the trader's performance compares to benchmarks, and what the metrics reveal about trading style. This bridges the gap between quantitative rigor and accessibility for non-technical traders.
Unique: Pairs quantitative metric calculation with LLM-generated narrative explanations and benchmark contextualization, making financial metrics accessible to non-technical traders rather than presenting raw numbers
vs alternatives: More educational and accessible than pure analytics dashboards; more rigorous and transparent than algorithmic platforms that hide performance attribution in black-box models
Enables users to ask questions about specific individual trades or trade sequences, receiving detailed analysis of entry/exit decisions, timing, position sizing, and outcomes. The system retrieves relevant trade data from the portfolio context and generates explanations of what happened, why it happened, and what could have been done differently. This capability supports iterative learning by allowing traders to drill down from high-level patterns to specific trade decisions.
Unique: Supports iterative drill-down from portfolio patterns to individual trade decisions through conversational queries, enabling traders to connect high-level insights to specific execution decisions
vs alternatives: More focused on behavioral learning than algorithmic platforms; more detailed and conversational than static trade journals or spreadsheet reviews
Allows users to ask questions that implicitly or explicitly filter trades by time period, market condition, or asset class (e.g., 'How did I trade during the March 2023 rally?' or 'Compare my performance in bull vs. bear markets'). The system interprets these natural language filters, applies them to the portfolio data, and generates comparative analysis. This capability enables traders to understand how their behavior and performance vary across different market regimes without requiring manual data slicing.
Unique: Interprets natural language time/condition filters and applies them dynamically to portfolio data without requiring users to manually specify date ranges or market definitions
vs alternatives: More flexible and conversational than dashboard filters that require users to manually select date ranges; more accessible than quantitative platforms requiring explicit regime definitions
Analyzes position sizing decisions across the portfolio and identifies patterns in risk management — such as oversized positions, inconsistent stop-loss placement, or risk-per-trade variance. The system calculates metrics like risk-per-trade percentage, position size relative to account, and maximum exposure, then generates coaching feedback on whether sizing is appropriate for the trader's stated risk tolerance. This addresses a critical gap in trader education where position sizing discipline directly impacts long-term survival.
Unique: Combines quantitative position sizing metrics with behavioral coaching feedback, addressing both the technical calculation and the discipline/consistency aspects of risk management
vs alternatives: More focused on behavioral risk management than algorithmic platforms; more rigorous than trader journals that lack systematic position sizing analysis
Maintains conversation state and portfolio context across multiple user sessions, allowing traders to return to previous analyses and continue drilling down into patterns without re-uploading data or re-specifying context. The system stores conversation history, portfolio snapshots, and analysis state in a user-specific knowledge base, enabling continuity and reference to previous insights. This differs from stateless chatbots by treating the portfolio as persistent context that accumulates insights over time.
Unique: Maintains persistent portfolio context and conversation history across sessions rather than treating each query as stateless; enables traders to build on previous insights over time
vs alternatives: More sophisticated than stateless chatbots; more user-centric than analytics dashboards that require manual navigation to previous analyses
+1 more capabilities
Crawls 11+ Chinese social platforms (Zhihu, Weibo, Bilibili, Douyin, etc.) and RSS feeds simultaneously, normalizing heterogeneous data schemas into a unified NewsItem model with platform-agnostic metadata. Uses platform-specific adapters that extract title, URL, hotness rank, and engagement metrics, then merges results into a single deduplicated feed ordered by composite hotness score (rank × 0.6 + frequency × 0.3 + platform_hot_value × 0.1).
Unique: Implements platform-specific adapter pattern with 11+ crawlers (Zhihu, Weibo, Bilibili, Douyin, etc.) plus RSS support, normalizing heterogeneous schemas into unified NewsItem model with composite hotness scoring (rank × 0.6 + frequency × 0.3 + platform_hot_value × 0.1) rather than simple ranking
vs alternatives: Covers more Chinese platforms than generic news aggregators (Feedly, Inoreader) and uses weighted composite scoring instead of single-metric ranking, making it superior for investors tracking multi-platform sentiment
Filters aggregated news against user-defined keyword lists (frequency_words.txt) using regex pattern matching and boolean logic (required keywords AND, excluded keywords NOT). Implements a scoring engine that weights matches by keyword frequency tier and calculates relevance scores. Supports regex patterns, case-insensitive matching, and multi-language keyword sets. Articles matching filter criteria are retained; non-matching articles are discarded before analysis and notification stages.
Unique: Implements multi-tier keyword frequency weighting (high/medium/low priority keywords) with regex pattern support and boolean AND/NOT logic, scoring articles by keyword match density rather than simple presence/absence checks
vs alternatives: More flexible than simple keyword whitelisting (supports regex and exclusion rules) but simpler than ML-based relevance ranking, making it suitable for rule-driven curation without ML infrastructure
TrendRadar scores higher at 51/100 vs Trading Literacy at 28/100. TrendRadar also has a free tier, making it more accessible.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
Detects newly trending topics by comparing current aggregated feed against historical baseline (previous execution results). Marks new topics with 🆕 emoji and calculates trend velocity (rate of rank change) to identify rapidly rising topics. Implements configurable sensitivity thresholds to distinguish genuine new trends from noise. Stores historical snapshots to enable trend trajectory analysis and prediction.
Unique: Implements new topic detection by comparing current feed against historical baseline with configurable sensitivity thresholds. Calculates trend velocity (rank change rate) to identify rapidly rising topics and marks new trends with 🆕 emoji. Stores historical snapshots for trend trajectory analysis.
vs alternatives: More sophisticated than simple rank-based detection because it considers trend velocity and historical context; more practical than ML-based anomaly detection because it uses simple thresholding without model training; enables early-stage trend detection vs. mainstream coverage
Supports region-specific content filtering and display preferences (e.g., show only Mainland China trends, exclude Hong Kong/Taiwan content, or vice versa). Implements per-region keyword lists and notification channel routing (e.g., send Mainland China trends to WeChat, international trends to Telegram). Allows users to configure multiple region profiles and switch between them based on monitoring focus.
Unique: Implements region-specific content filtering with per-region keyword lists and channel routing. Supports multiple region profiles (Mainland China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, international) with independent keyword configurations and notification channel assignments.
vs alternatives: More flexible than single-region solutions because it supports multiple geographic markets simultaneously; more practical than manual region filtering because it automates routing based on platform metadata; enables region-specific monitoring vs. global aggregation
Abstracts deployment environment differences through unified execution mode interface. Detects runtime environment (GitHub Actions, Docker container, local Python) and applies mode-specific configuration (storage backend, notification channels, scheduling mechanism). Supports seamless migration between deployment modes without code changes. Implements environment-specific error handling and logging (e.g., GitHub Actions annotations for CI/CD visibility).
Unique: Implements execution mode abstraction detecting GitHub Actions, Docker, and local Python environments with automatic configuration switching. Applies mode-specific optimizations (storage backend, scheduling, logging) without code changes.
vs alternatives: More flexible than single-mode solutions because it supports multiple deployment options; more maintainable than separate codebases because it uses unified codebase with mode-specific configuration; more user-friendly than manual mode configuration because it auto-detects environment
Sends filtered news articles to LiteLLM, which abstracts over multiple LLM providers (OpenAI, Anthropic, Ollama, local models, etc.) to generate structured analysis including sentiment classification, key entity extraction, trend prediction, and executive summaries. Uses configurable system prompts and temperature settings per provider. Results are cached to avoid redundant API calls and formatted as structured JSON for downstream processing and notification delivery.
Unique: Uses LiteLLM abstraction layer to support 50+ LLM providers (OpenAI, Anthropic, Ollama, local models, etc.) with unified interface, allowing provider switching via config without code changes. Implements in-memory result caching and structured JSON output parsing with fallback to raw text.
vs alternatives: More flexible than single-provider solutions (e.g., direct OpenAI API) because it supports cost-effective provider switching and local model fallback; more robust than custom provider integration because LiteLLM handles retries and error handling
Translates article titles and summaries from Chinese to English (or other target languages) using LiteLLM-abstracted LLM providers with automatic fallback to alternative providers if primary provider fails. Maintains translation cache to avoid redundant API calls for identical content. Supports batch translation of multiple articles in single API call to reduce latency and cost. Integrates with notification system to deliver translated content to non-Chinese-speaking users.
Unique: Implements LiteLLM-based translation with automatic provider fallback and in-memory caching, supporting batch translation of multiple articles per API call to optimize latency and cost. Integrates seamlessly with multi-channel notification system for language-specific delivery.
vs alternatives: More cost-effective than dedicated translation APIs (Google Translate, DeepL) when using cheaper LLM providers; supports automatic fallback unlike single-provider solutions; batch processing reduces per-article cost vs. sequential translation
Distributes filtered and analyzed news to 9+ notification channels (WeChat, WeWork, Feishu, Telegram, Email, ntfy, Bark, Slack, etc.) using channel-specific adapters. Implements atomic message batching to group multiple articles into single notification payloads, respecting per-channel rate limits and message size constraints. Supports channel-specific formatting (Markdown for Slack, card format for WeWork, plain text for Email). Includes retry logic with exponential backoff for failed deliveries and delivery status tracking.
Unique: Implements channel-specific adapter pattern for 9+ notification platforms with atomic message batching that respects per-channel rate limits and message size constraints. Supports heterogeneous formatting (Markdown for Slack, card format for WeWork, plain text for Email) from single article payload.
vs alternatives: More comprehensive than single-channel solutions (e.g., email-only) and more flexible than generic webhook systems because it handles platform-specific formatting and rate limiting automatically; atomic batching reduces notification fatigue vs. per-article delivery
+5 more capabilities