| 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 6 decomposed | 7 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Aggregates real-time and historical cryptocurrency market data from multiple exchanges (likely Binance, Coinbase, Kraken, etc.) through their public APIs, normalizing disparate data schemas into a unified format for consistent querying. The system likely implements exchange-specific adapters that handle rate limiting, data freshness guarantees, and format translation, enabling users to query across exchanges without managing individual API connections.
Unique: Implements exchange-agnostic adapter pattern that normalizes heterogeneous API schemas (REST vs WebSocket, different timestamp formats, varying OHLCV granularities) into unified data model, reducing client-side complexity versus building separate integrations per exchange
vs alternatives: Lighter-weight than TradingView's full charting suite but faster to query than manually polling individual exchange APIs, targeting users who need data aggregation without premium charting overhead
Provides a rule-based filtering engine that allows users to define screening criteria across multiple dimensions (market cap ranges, 24h volume thresholds, price change percentages, liquidity metrics, listing age) and apply these filters to the aggregated cryptocurrency universe. The system likely uses a query builder UI that translates user-defined conditions into database queries or in-memory filtering operations, enabling rapid iteration of screening strategies without requiring SQL knowledge.
Unique: Implements visual query builder that abstracts SQL/database query construction, allowing non-technical users to compose multi-dimensional filters via dropdown menus and input fields, then translates these into efficient backend queries without exposing query syntax
vs alternatives: More accessible than CoinGecko's API-only filtering approach and simpler than TradingView's Pine Script for traders who need quick screening without learning a programming language
Displays live cryptocurrency prices, 24-hour price changes, market cap rankings, and trading volume in a responsive web interface with periodic data refresh (likely via WebSocket connections or polling intervals of 5-30 seconds). The visualization layer likely uses lightweight charting libraries (e.g., Chart.js, Lightweight Charts) to render price sparklines and trend indicators without the overhead of full technical analysis platforms, prioritizing speed and simplicity over feature depth.
Unique: Uses lightweight charting approach (sparklines instead of full candlestick charts) with WebSocket-based data streaming to minimize bandwidth and CPU usage, enabling smooth real-time updates on low-end devices versus heavy charting libraries that require significant client resources
vs alternatives: Faster and more responsive than TradingView for basic price monitoring due to minimal UI overhead, but lacks technical analysis depth that professional traders require
Allows users to create and maintain personal watchlists of cryptocurrencies with persistent storage (likely using browser localStorage for free tier, server-side database for premium accounts). The system tracks user-selected coins and enables quick access to custom subsets of the full cryptocurrency universe, with features like adding/removing coins, organizing into multiple lists, and potentially setting custom alerts or notes per coin.
Unique: Implements hybrid persistence strategy using browser localStorage for free tier (no server dependency) and optional server-side database for premium tier, enabling offline access while supporting multi-device sync for paid users without forcing infrastructure costs on free users
vs alternatives: Simpler than CoinGecko's portfolio tracking (which requires manual entry of purchase prices and quantities) but more persistent than browser bookmarks, targeting users who need lightweight coin tracking without full portfolio accounting
Implements a subscription model that gates advanced features (likely detailed analytics, alert systems, API access, or premium data sources) behind a paywall while providing core screening and data aggregation functionality for free users. The system likely uses role-based access control (RBAC) or feature flags to conditionally render UI elements and restrict API endpoints based on subscription tier, with a clear upgrade path to premium features.
Unique: Implements freemium model that provides sufficient free functionality (multi-exchange data aggregation, basic screening) to deliver value to newcomers while reserving advanced features for paid tiers, balancing user acquisition against revenue generation without completely crippling free tier utility
vs alternatives: More accessible entry point than TradingView's premium-first model, but less transparent pricing than CoinGecko's clear tier differentiation, creating friction in the upgrade decision process
Provides search functionality to locate cryptocurrencies by symbol, name, or category (e.g., 'DeFi tokens', 'Layer 2 solutions', 'Stablecoins') within the aggregated cryptocurrency universe. The search likely uses full-text indexing or fuzzy matching to handle typos and partial matches, returning ranked results with basic metadata (price, market cap, change %) to help users quickly identify coins of interest before applying detailed screening filters.
Unique: Combines symbol/name search with category-based discovery, using indexed full-text search with fuzzy matching to handle typos while providing category browsing for users exploring market segments, versus simple dropdown lists or API-only search
vs alternatives: More discoverable than CoinGecko's API-first approach for casual users, but less sophisticated than TradingView's advanced search with technical indicators and custom watchlist integration
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 CoinScreener 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