| 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Paid | Free |
| Capabilities | 10 decomposed | 9 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Decomposes portfolio risk assessment into discrete agent tasks that analyze correlations, volatility, and tail risks across equities, fixed income, commodities, and alternatives. Uses agentic reasoning loops to iteratively refine risk estimates by querying market data APIs, computing Value-at-Risk (VaR) and Expected Shortfall (ES) metrics, and synthesizing results into actionable risk profiles. The agent maintains context across multiple asset classes and time horizons to produce holistic portfolio risk scores.
Unique: Uses multi-step agentic reasoning to decompose portfolio risk analysis across asset classes, enabling dynamic re-evaluation of correlations and tail risks rather than relying on static covariance matrices or pre-computed risk models. Agents can query live market data and iteratively refine estimates based on current market regime.
vs alternatives: Outperforms traditional risk engines (Bloomberg PORT, Axioma) by adapting risk models in real-time through agent reasoning, but trades off latency for accuracy in volatile markets where static models become stale.
Orchestrates multi-objective optimization agents that rebalance portfolios subject to regulatory constraints, tax efficiency targets, and liquidity requirements. The system uses constraint-satisfaction reasoning to navigate competing objectives (maximize return, minimize risk, minimize tax drag, respect position limits) and generates rebalancing recommendations with execution sequencing. Agents evaluate trade-offs between objectives and surface Pareto-optimal allocation frontiers to decision-makers.
Unique: Combines multi-objective optimization with constraint-satisfaction reasoning to generate tax-aware, regulation-compliant rebalancing recommendations. Agents iteratively refine allocations by evaluating trade-offs between competing objectives and surfacing Pareto-optimal solutions rather than single-point recommendations.
vs alternatives: More flexible than traditional mean-variance optimization (which optimizes single objective) by simultaneously handling tax efficiency, regulatory constraints, and liquidity — but requires more configuration and may be slower than closed-form optimization solutions.
Deploys continuous monitoring agents that track portfolio metrics (returns, volatility, correlations, drawdowns) against baselines and thresholds, detecting deviations that signal risk or opportunity. Uses statistical anomaly detection (z-score, isolation forest, or learned baselines) to distinguish signal from noise and triggers escalating alerts (email, SMS, dashboard) when thresholds are breached. Agents maintain rolling windows of historical metrics to adapt baselines to market regime changes.
Unique: Uses agentic monitoring loops with adaptive baselines that adjust to market regime changes, rather than static thresholds. Agents continuously re-evaluate anomaly detection models and escalate alerts based on severity and context, enabling proactive risk management.
vs alternatives: More responsive than traditional risk dashboards (which require manual review) and more intelligent than simple threshold-based alerts (which generate false positives) by using learned baselines and contextual anomaly detection.
Orchestrates agent-driven scenario analysis that simulates portfolio behavior under hypothetical market conditions (interest rate shocks, equity crashes, volatility spikes, geopolitical events). Agents parameterize scenarios, apply shock vectors to market prices and correlations, recompute portfolio metrics, and synthesize results into scenario reports. Uses Monte Carlo simulation or historical scenario replay to generate distributions of outcomes rather than point estimates.
Unique: Uses agentic simulation loops to parameterize scenarios, apply shocks, and synthesize results, enabling flexible scenario design and iterative refinement. Agents can combine historical scenarios with hypothetical shocks and generate distributions of outcomes rather than single-point estimates.
vs alternatives: More flexible than pre-built stress-test libraries (which offer limited scenario customization) and more comprehensive than single-scenario analysis (which misses tail risks), but requires more computational resources and scenario expertise than simple sensitivity analysis.
Coordinates multiple specialized agents (risk agent, return agent, tax agent, compliance agent) that evaluate portfolios from different perspectives and reach consensus on recommendations. Agents debate trade-offs, surface conflicts (e.g., tax efficiency vs. risk reduction), and synthesize recommendations that balance competing objectives. Uses negotiation or voting protocols to resolve disagreements and produce final recommendations with transparency on trade-offs.
Unique: Orchestrates multiple specialized agents with different objectives to reach consensus on portfolio recommendations, surfacing trade-offs and conflicts explicitly. Uses negotiation or voting protocols to resolve disagreements rather than pre-weighting objectives.
vs alternatives: More transparent and flexible than black-box multi-objective optimization (which hides trade-offs) and more coordinated than independent agent recommendations (which may conflict), but adds complexity and latency.
Generates natural language summaries and reports that explain portfolio composition, risk metrics, allocation changes, and recommendations in plain English. Uses templated generation with agent reasoning to select relevant metrics, highlight key insights, and tailor explanations to audience (technical vs. non-technical). Integrates with portfolio data and metrics to produce dynamic reports that update as portfolio changes.
Unique: Uses agentic reasoning to select relevant metrics and insights for inclusion in reports, rather than static templates. Agents adapt explanations to audience and highlight key trade-offs or risks, producing more contextual and useful reports than simple metric aggregation.
vs alternatives: More intelligent and contextual than template-based reporting (which is generic) and more scalable than manual report writing, but requires human review for accuracy and regulatory compliance.
Provides agent-driven connectors to external market data providers (Bloomberg, Reuters, Yahoo Finance, alternative data vendors) and portfolio systems (custodians, brokers, trading platforms). Agents handle authentication, data transformation, and reconciliation across sources, normalizing heterogeneous data formats into unified portfolio and market data models. Supports both batch ingestion and streaming real-time data feeds.
Unique: Uses agents to manage authentication, data transformation, and reconciliation across multiple heterogeneous data sources, rather than requiring manual ETL pipelines. Agents handle API failures, rate limits, and schema changes automatically.
vs alternatives: More flexible than point-to-point integrations (which require custom code for each data source) and more maintainable than monolithic ETL pipelines (which break when external APIs change), but adds complexity and requires careful error handling.
Executes agent-driven backtests that replay historical market data, apply portfolio strategies (rebalancing rules, allocation changes, risk management rules), and compute historical performance metrics. Agents iteratively refine strategy parameters based on backtest results, optimizing for objectives like Sharpe ratio, maximum drawdown, or Calmar ratio. Supports walk-forward optimization to avoid overfitting and generates performance attribution by position and time period.
Unique: Uses agentic optimization loops to iteratively refine strategy parameters based on backtest results, with walk-forward validation to avoid overfitting. Agents can explore parameter spaces and generate Pareto frontiers of strategy trade-offs.
vs alternatives: More flexible than pre-built backtesting libraries (which offer limited strategy customization) and more rigorous than manual backtesting (which is error-prone), but requires careful handling of biases and computational resources.
+2 more capabilities
Executes SQL queries against Supabase PostgreSQL instances through the Model Context Protocol, translating natural language or structured query requests into parameterized SQL statements. Uses MCP's tool-calling interface to expose database operations as callable functions with schema validation, enabling LLM agents to perform CRUD operations, joins, and aggregations with automatic connection pooling and credential management through Supabase client SDK.
Unique: Exposes Supabase PostgreSQL as MCP tools with automatic credential injection from Supabase client SDK, eliminating manual connection string management and enabling seamless LLM-to-database queries within Claude or compatible agents
vs alternatives: Tighter integration than generic SQL MCP servers because it leverages Supabase's built-in authentication and connection pooling rather than requiring separate database credential configuration
Exposes Supabase Auth session state and user metadata through MCP tools, allowing agents to inspect current authentication context, retrieve user profiles, and trigger auth-related operations. Integrates with Supabase's JWT-based auth system to validate sessions and access user claims without re-authenticating, using the Supabase client's built-in session management.
Unique: Integrates Supabase's JWT-based auth system directly into MCP tool interface, allowing agents to inspect and act on auth state without managing separate credential stores or re-authentication flows
vs alternatives: More seamless than generic auth MCP servers because it leverages Supabase's built-in session management and avoids redundant credential passing between agent and auth system
Invokes Supabase Edge Functions (serverless TypeScript/JavaScript functions) through MCP tools, passing parameters and receiving results with optional streaming support. Uses Supabase's edge function HTTP API to trigger functions with automatic authentication headers and response parsing, enabling agents to execute custom business logic without embedding it in the agent itself.
Supabase scores higher at 42/100 vs Avanzai at 20/100. Avanzai leads on quality, while Supabase is stronger on ecosystem. Supabase also has a free tier, making it more accessible.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
Unique: Exposes Supabase Edge Functions as MCP tools with automatic authentication and response parsing, allowing agents to invoke custom serverless logic without managing HTTP clients or credential injection
vs alternatives: More integrated than generic HTTP MCP tools because it handles Supabase-specific authentication, error handling, and response formatting automatically
Subscribes to real-time changes on Supabase tables through MCP's event streaming interface, using Supabase's PostgreSQL LISTEN/NOTIFY mechanism to push INSERT, UPDATE, and DELETE events to agents. Maintains persistent WebSocket connections and filters events by table and row-level policies, enabling agents to react to database changes without polling.
Unique: Bridges Supabase's PostgreSQL LISTEN/NOTIFY real-time system with MCP's tool interface, enabling agents to subscribe to database changes without managing WebSocket connections or event serialization
vs alternatives: More efficient than polling-based approaches because it uses Supabase's native real-time infrastructure rather than repeated database queries
Manages files in Supabase Storage buckets through MCP tools, supporting upload, download, list, and delete operations with automatic authentication and path-based access control. Uses Supabase's S3-compatible storage API with built-in support for public/private buckets and signed URLs for temporary access, enabling agents to handle file I/O without managing cloud storage credentials.
Unique: Exposes Supabase Storage's S3-compatible API as MCP tools with automatic authentication and signed URL generation, eliminating the need for agents to manage cloud storage credentials or generate temporary access tokens
vs alternatives: More integrated than generic S3 MCP tools because it leverages Supabase's built-in bucket policies and authentication rather than requiring separate AWS credentials
Performs semantic similarity searches on vector embeddings stored in Supabase PostgreSQL using pgvector extension, translating natural language queries into embedding vectors and executing cosine/L2 distance searches. Integrates with embedding providers (OpenAI, Cohere) or uses pre-computed embeddings, enabling agents to retrieve semantically similar documents or records without full-text search limitations.
Unique: Integrates pgvector directly into MCP tools with automatic embedding generation and distance calculation, enabling agents to perform semantic search without managing separate vector database infrastructure
vs alternatives: More efficient than external vector databases (Pinecone, Weaviate) for Supabase users because it colocates embeddings with relational data, reducing network latency and simplifying data synchronization
Exposes Supabase database schema information through MCP tools, allowing agents to discover table structures, column types, constraints, and relationships without manual schema documentation. Queries PostgreSQL information_schema and Supabase metadata tables to dynamically generate schema descriptions, enabling agents to construct valid queries and understand data relationships.
Unique: Queries Supabase's PostgreSQL information_schema directly through MCP tools, enabling agents to dynamically discover and adapt to database schemas without pre-configured schema definitions
vs alternatives: More flexible than static schema definitions because it reflects live database state, including recent migrations or schema changes
Enforces Supabase Row-Level Security policies within agent queries, ensuring that agents can only access rows permitted by RLS rules defined in the database. Evaluates policies based on authenticated user context (JWT claims, user ID) and applies WHERE clause filters automatically, preventing unauthorized data access at the database layer rather than application layer.
Unique: Delegates authorization enforcement to PostgreSQL RLS policies rather than implementing authorization in agent code, ensuring that data access rules are centralized and cannot be bypassed by agent logic
vs alternatives: More secure than application-level authorization because RLS is enforced at the database layer, preventing accidental data leaks even if agent code has bugs
+1 more capabilities