| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 8 decomposed | 7 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Greip processes incoming transaction requests through a multi-signal scoring engine that combines IP geolocation, device fingerprinting, and behavioral heuristics to assign a fraud risk score in under 100ms. The system evaluates transaction metadata (IP, device ID, user behavior patterns) against historical fraud patterns and returns a numerical risk score that integrates directly into payment authorization flows without blocking legitimate transactions.
Unique: Achieves sub-100ms latency through edge-cached IP geolocation databases and pre-computed device fingerprint hashes rather than real-time ML inference, enabling synchronous integration into payment authorization flows without async callbacks
vs alternatives: Faster than Stripe Radar for simple fraud signals (IP + device) because it avoids heavyweight ML inference, but less sophisticated than AWS Fraud Detector which uses ensemble models and requires more integration effort
Greip maintains a continuously-updated IP address database that maps IP ranges to geographic locations, ISP information, and flags suspicious IP characteristics (datacenter IPs, known proxy services, VPN exit nodes). When a transaction IP is queried, the system performs a lookup against this database and returns geolocation coordinates, country/city, ISP name, and risk flags indicating whether the IP belongs to a proxy, VPN, or datacenter network commonly used for fraud.
Unique: Combines IP geolocation with proxy/VPN detection in a single lookup rather than requiring separate API calls to different providers, reducing latency and simplifying integration for developers who need both signals
vs alternatives: Simpler integration than MaxMind (single API call vs. multiple databases) but less comprehensive than Maxmind's GeoIP2 which includes additional signals like mobile carrier detection and threat intelligence
Greip provides a client-side JavaScript SDK that collects device characteristics (user agent, screen resolution, installed fonts, canvas fingerprint, WebGL renderer, timezone, language settings) and generates a stable device fingerprint hash. This fingerprint is sent with transactions to enable device-level fraud detection, allowing the system to identify when multiple accounts are being accessed from the same device or when a device's behavior pattern suddenly changes.
Unique: Combines multiple fingerprinting signals (canvas, WebGL, font enumeration, user agent) into a single hash rather than relying on a single signal, improving stability and reducing false positives from minor browser changes
vs alternatives: Lighter-weight than FingerprintJS Pro (no server-side ML model) but less stable; better for real-time fraud scoring than historical device tracking
Greip analyzes transaction patterns for each user account (transaction frequency, amount distribution, time-of-day patterns, geographic velocity) and flags deviations from the user's historical baseline as behavioral anomalies. The system learns normal behavior from the first 10-20 transactions and then scores subsequent transactions based on how much they deviate from established patterns (e.g., a user who normally spends $50/transaction suddenly spending $5000 triggers a high anomaly score).
Unique: Uses statistical deviation from user-specific baselines rather than global fraud patterns, enabling personalized fraud detection that adapts to individual spending habits without requiring labeled fraud training data
vs alternatives: More personalized than Stripe Radar's global rules but requires more historical data; faster to implement than building custom ML models but less sophisticated than ensemble approaches that combine behavioral, network, and device signals
Greip exposes a REST API endpoint that accepts transaction details (IP, device fingerprint, user ID, amount, merchant category) and returns a fraud risk assessment synchronously or asynchronously via webhook. The API supports both real-time blocking (synchronous response) and async scoring (webhook callback) to accommodate different integration patterns. Developers can call the API at transaction time, post-transaction for batch scoring, or set up webhooks to receive risk updates as new signals become available.
Unique: Supports both synchronous and asynchronous scoring modes in a single API, allowing developers to choose between real-time blocking (sync) and background risk updates (async webhooks) based on their authorization flow requirements
vs alternatives: More flexible than Stripe Radar which is tightly coupled to Stripe's payment flow; simpler than building custom fraud detection but less integrated than native payment processor solutions
Greip offers a free tier that provides limited API access (typically 100-1000 requests/month) with full feature parity to paid tiers, enabling developers to test fraud detection against real transaction patterns before committing budget. The free tier includes all core capabilities (IP geolocation, device fingerprinting, behavioral analysis) but with strict rate limits enforced at the API key level. Developers can upgrade to paid tiers (typically $99-999/month) for higher rate limits and priority support.
Unique: Offers full feature parity between free and paid tiers (unlike competitors who cripple free tiers with reduced accuracy or missing signals), allowing developers to validate fraud detection effectiveness before paying
vs alternatives: More generous than Stripe Radar's free tier (which requires active Stripe account) and MaxMind's free tier (which has significantly reduced accuracy); better for early-stage validation than AWS Fraud Detector which requires AWS account setup
Greip provides a web-based dashboard that displays real-time fraud alerts, historical transaction risk scores, and aggregated fraud metrics (fraud rate, high-risk transaction volume, geographic distribution of fraud). The dashboard allows developers to review flagged transactions, adjust risk thresholds, and export transaction history for analysis. Alerts are surfaced with risk scores, signal breakdowns, and recommended actions (block, challenge, allow).
Unique: Provides unified dashboard for all fraud signals (IP, device, behavioral) rather than requiring separate dashboards for each signal type, simplifying fraud investigation workflows
vs alternatives: More user-friendly than Stripe Radar's dashboard for non-technical users; less comprehensive than enterprise fraud management platforms (Kount, Sift) which offer advanced case management and investigation tools
Greip sends webhook notifications to a developer-specified HTTPS endpoint whenever a transaction exceeds a configurable fraud risk threshold. Webhooks are sent in real-time (within seconds of transaction scoring) and include full transaction details, risk score, signal breakdown, and recommended action. Developers can configure separate thresholds for different actions (alert, block, challenge) and customize webhook payload format.
Unique: Sends webhooks with full signal breakdown (IP risk, device risk, behavioral risk) rather than just a binary fraud/not-fraud decision, enabling developers to implement nuanced fraud response logic based on specific risk signals
vs alternatives: More flexible than Stripe Radar's webhook system which only sends alerts for high-risk transactions; simpler than building custom fraud detection but requires webhook infrastructure on client side
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 Greip at 41/100.
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