| 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 6 decomposed | 7 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Ingests and normalizes cryptocurrency news from fragmented sources (Twitter, CoinTelegraph, traditional finance feeds, on-chain data providers) into a unified feed with consistent metadata (timestamp, source credibility score, asset tags). Uses content deduplication and source-weighting algorithms to surface unique stories and filter noise, presenting aggregated results through a single interface rather than requiring manual cross-platform monitoring.
Unique: Centralizes fragmented crypto information landscape (Twitter, CoinTelegraph, on-chain data, TradFi feeds) into single interface with deduplication and source-weighting rather than requiring users to manually aggregate across platforms
vs alternatives: Faster onboarding for retail traders vs institutional platforms (Messari, Glassnode) which require domain expertise and higher subscription costs, but lacks institutional-grade on-chain metrics and historical depth
Applies large language model inference over aggregated news, price data, and on-chain metrics to generate interpretive analysis, market context, and trading implications. The system likely uses prompt engineering or fine-tuning to synthesize multi-modal crypto data (news sentiment, transaction volume, whale movements) into human-readable narratives explaining market drivers and potential outcomes, rather than serving raw data alone.
Unique: Synthesizes multi-modal crypto data (news, price, on-chain metrics) through LLM inference to generate interpretive narratives explaining market drivers, rather than serving isolated data points or simple sentiment scores
vs alternatives: More accessible and interpretive than raw Glassnode dashboards for non-technical traders, but lacks institutional-grade rigor and independent validation that paid competitors provide
Implements a tagging and filtering system that maps news, analyses, and market data to specific cryptocurrencies, blockchain addresses, or DeFi protocols. Uses entity recognition (likely NER or regex-based pattern matching) to identify asset mentions in unstructured text, then allows users to subscribe to intelligence feeds filtered by asset, sector (DeFi, Layer-2, staking), or risk category. Enables personalized dashboards showing only relevant information for a user's portfolio.
Unique: Maps unstructured news and analysis to specific cryptocurrencies and DeFi protocols through entity recognition, enabling personalized intelligence feeds filtered by user portfolio rather than serving undifferentiated market-wide data
vs alternatives: More accessible portfolio-centric filtering than generic crypto news aggregators, but lacks institutional portfolio management features (risk weighting, correlation analysis) found in enterprise platforms
Collects sentiment signals from multiple sources (social media mentions, news tone, on-chain transaction patterns, exchange funding rates) and synthesizes them into composite sentiment scores (bullish/bearish/neutral) for specific assets or the broader market. Likely uses sentiment analysis models (fine-tuned transformers or rule-based scoring) applied to news headlines, Twitter/X posts, and community discussions, then aggregates scores with time-decay weighting to reflect current market psychology.
Unique: Aggregates sentiment from multiple heterogeneous sources (social media, news, on-chain activity) into composite scores with time-decay weighting, rather than serving isolated sentiment metrics from single sources
vs alternatives: More accessible sentiment overview than building custom social listening pipelines, but lacks institutional-grade bot detection and manipulation filtering that premium platforms provide
Implements a freemium business model where basic news aggregation and sentiment feeds are available to free users, while advanced features (detailed on-chain analysis, historical backtesting, premium analyst reports, API access) are gated behind paid subscription tiers. The architecture likely uses role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce feature limits, rate-limiting on API endpoints, and feature flags to toggle premium capabilities per user tier.
Unique: Freemium model removes barriers to entry for retail traders vs enterprise platforms, using role-based access control to gate advanced analysis and API features behind paid tiers
vs alternatives: Lower entry cost than Messari or Glassnode for casual users, but likely limits free tier utility enough to force upgrade for serious traders, creating friction vs competitors with more generous free tiers
WaspGPT aggregates cryptocurrency intelligence from multiple sources, but the specific data providers, update frequencies, and freshness guarantees are not documented. The system likely integrates with news APIs (CoinTelegraph, Crypto News, etc.), social media streams (Twitter/X, Discord), and possibly on-chain data providers (Glassnode, Nansen), but the architecture for source prioritization, conflict resolution, and update scheduling is opaque.
Unique: unknown — insufficient data on specific data providers, integration architecture, and freshness guarantees
vs alternatives: Transparency gap vs competitors like Glassnode and Messari, which publish detailed documentation on data sources, update frequencies, and SLAs
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 WaspGPT at 38/100.
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