| 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 8 decomposed | 7 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Converts plain English questions into executable SQL queries through an LLM-based semantic parsing pipeline. The system likely uses prompt engineering or fine-tuned models to map natural language intent to SQL syntax, handling entity recognition (column names, aggregation functions) and query structure inference. This eliminates the need for users to write SQL manually while maintaining query correctness for standard analytical operations.
Unique: Uses LLM-based semantic understanding to infer SQL from conversational English without requiring users to specify schema explicitly—the system infers column mappings and aggregation logic from question context and CSV headers, whereas traditional SQL assistants require explicit schema definition
vs alternatives: More accessible than SQL-first tools (Metabase, Tableau) for non-technical users because it eliminates the schema-learning curve, but less powerful than professional BI platforms for complex multi-table analysis
Generates appropriate charts and visualizations (bar charts, line graphs, scatter plots, etc.) based on query results and inferred data semantics. The system analyzes result structure (dimensions vs measures, cardinality, data types) to recommend visualization types, then renders interactive charts. This removes the manual step of selecting chart types and configuring axes, making insights immediately visual.
Unique: Automatically infers appropriate visualization types from query result structure and data semantics rather than requiring manual chart selection—uses cardinality analysis and data type inference to recommend bar vs line vs scatter plots without user input
vs alternatives: Faster than Tableau or Power BI for exploratory visualization because it skips the manual chart configuration step, but less flexible for custom or domain-specific visualization needs
Accepts CSV file uploads and automatically infers schema (column names, data types, cardinality) without requiring manual schema definition. The system parses CSV headers, samples rows to detect data types (numeric, categorical, date, text), and builds an internal representation of the dataset structure. This schema is then used for query generation and visualization recommendations, enabling zero-configuration data exploration.
Unique: Performs automatic schema inference from CSV samples without requiring users to manually specify column types or relationships—uses statistical sampling and heuristic type detection to build schema in seconds, whereas traditional data tools require explicit schema definition
vs alternatives: Faster onboarding than SQL databases or data warehouses because it eliminates schema definition steps, but less robust than professional ETL tools for handling malformed or ambiguous data
Provides an interactive interface where users can ask follow-up questions, refine previous queries, and drill down into results without starting from scratch. The system maintains query context and conversation history, allowing users to ask relative questions like 'show me the top 5' or 'break that down by region' without re-specifying the full query. This conversational interaction pattern reduces friction for iterative data exploration.
Unique: Maintains conversational context across multiple queries, allowing relative references and follow-up questions without full query re-specification—uses conversation history and result caching to enable natural iterative exploration, whereas most SQL tools require explicit query re-entry
vs alternatives: More natural interaction model than traditional SQL IDEs because it supports conversational refinement, but less powerful than advanced analytics platforms for complex multi-step analysis workflows
Translates natural language filter and aggregation requests into SQL WHERE, GROUP BY, and aggregate function clauses. The system recognizes intent patterns like 'show me sales over $1000', 'count by region', or 'average price per category' and maps them to appropriate SQL operations. This capability handles common analytical operations without requiring users to understand SQL syntax for filtering, grouping, or calculating summaries.
Unique: Recognizes and translates natural language aggregation patterns ('total sales by region', 'count of customers') directly into SQL GROUP BY and aggregate functions without requiring users to specify SQL syntax—uses intent recognition and semantic mapping rather than template-based query construction
vs alternatives: More intuitive than writing SQL GROUP BY clauses for non-technical users, but less flexible than pandas or SQL for complex multi-level aggregations or custom calculations
Implements a freemium pricing model with free tier limits on query execution, file uploads, or storage to encourage conversion to paid plans. The system tracks usage metrics (queries per month, files uploaded, storage used) and enforces soft or hard limits that either throttle performance or require upgrade. This enables users to test core functionality without payment while monetizing power users and teams.
Unique: Implements freemium tier with query-based limits rather than feature-based restrictions—users get full functionality but hit execution quotas, encouraging upgrade for power users while allowing free exploration for casual users
vs alternatives: More generous than feature-gated freemium models (which disable advanced features) because free users access the full product, but may have lower conversion rates if free limits are too permissive
Manages user sessions and data isolation by storing uploaded CSV files on external servers with session-scoped access controls. Each user session maintains isolated access to their uploaded data, and files are processed server-side for query execution. However, the system's data retention policies and encryption practices are not transparently documented, creating privacy concerns for sensitive data.
Unique: Implements session-based data isolation with server-side processing, but lacks transparent documentation of encryption, retention, and compliance practices—creates privacy concerns for sensitive data that competitors like Metabase (self-hosted option) or local tools address through on-premise deployment
vs alternatives: Simpler deployment than self-hosted BI tools because no infrastructure setup is required, but riskier for sensitive data due to unclear privacy and retention policies
Caches query results and inferred schemas to reduce redundant computation and improve response times for repeated or similar queries. The system likely stores results in memory or a fast cache layer, enabling instant retrieval of previously executed queries and faster execution of similar queries through cache hits. This optimization is critical for interactive exploration where users may ask similar questions multiple times.
Unique: Implements transparent query result caching without explicit user control—system automatically caches and reuses results based on query similarity, improving interactive performance but potentially serving stale data if source CSV is updated
vs alternatives: Faster than uncached query execution for iterative analysis, but less transparent than explicit cache management in professional BI tools where users can control invalidation
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 AskCSV 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