| Ecosystem |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Paid | Free |
| Capabilities | 13 decomposed | 7 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Analyzes user-provided risk tolerance, investment timeline, and financial goals through a questionnaire interface to generate initial asset allocation recommendations. The system likely uses a decision tree or clustering algorithm to map user profiles to predefined allocation templates (e.g., aggressive/moderate/conservative), then personalizes weights across asset classes (stocks, bonds, alternatives) based on goal-specific parameters. This allocation serves as the foundation for all downstream recommendations.
Unique: Likely uses ML clustering to map user profiles to historically-validated allocation templates rather than pure algorithmic optimization, enabling faster personalization while maintaining conservative risk bounds. The system appears to re-evaluate allocations based on market conditions and user behavior drift, not just static questionnaire responses.
vs alternatives: More adaptive than traditional robo-advisors (Betterment, Wealthfront) which use fixed allocation bands; potentially cheaper than human advisors while offering continuous rebalancing logic
Continuously monitors market data (equity indices, volatility, interest rates, sector performance) and adjusts portfolio recommendations in real-time or near-real-time without requiring user action. The system likely ingests market feeds via APIs (Yahoo Finance, Bloomberg, or proprietary data), applies technical indicators and regime-detection algorithms (e.g., VIX thresholds, yield curve inversion detection) to identify market regime shifts, then triggers recommendation updates (e.g., 'reduce equity exposure during high volatility' or 'increase bond allocation when rates spike'). This creates a feedback loop where recommendations drift from the initial allocation based on market conditions.
Unique: Implements continuous market regime detection rather than static allocation bands, enabling proactive recommendation shifts before user-initiated rebalancing. The system likely uses ensemble methods (combining technical indicators, macro factors, and sentiment signals) to reduce false positives in regime detection.
vs alternatives: More responsive than traditional robo-advisors which rebalance on fixed schedules (quarterly/annually); potentially more disciplined than human advisors who may delay adjustments due to behavioral biases
Simulates portfolio performance under hypothetical market scenarios (recession, inflation spike, geopolitical crisis, interest rate shock) to evaluate strategy robustness. The system likely maintains a library of historical market scenarios or uses parameterized stress scenarios, then applies these to the recommended allocation to estimate potential losses and recovery times. This enables users to understand how their portfolio would perform in adverse conditions.
Unique: Provides scenario analysis using both historical crisis scenarios and parameterized stress scenarios, enabling users to evaluate strategy robustness across diverse adverse conditions. The system likely weights scenarios by historical frequency or user-specified probability.
vs alternatives: More comprehensive than simple drawdown analysis; comparable to institutional stress testing but accessible to retail investors
Analyzes portfolio holdings to identify dividend-paying securities and optimizes the portfolio for income generation based on user preferences. The system likely tracks dividend yields, payout ratios, and dividend growth rates, then recommends securities or allocations that maximize income while maintaining risk and diversification constraints. It may also provide tax-efficient income strategies (qualified vs. non-qualified dividends, dividend reinvestment decisions).
Unique: Optimizes for income generation while maintaining risk and diversification constraints, rather than treating income as a secondary consideration. The system likely uses constrained optimization to balance yield, quality, and diversification.
vs alternatives: More sophisticated than simple high-yield screening; comparable to income-focused robo-advisors but integrated into broader portfolio optimization
Analyzes correlation between portfolio holdings and asset classes to identify diversification gaps and concentration risks. The system likely computes pairwise correlations between holdings, identifies clusters of highly-correlated assets, and recommends diversification improvements. It may also use principal component analysis or other dimensionality reduction techniques to identify the true number of independent risk factors in the portfolio.
Unique: Provides correlation analysis with clustering and principal component analysis to identify true diversification gaps, rather than simple correlation matrices. The system likely detects correlation breakdown during market stress.
vs alternatives: More detailed than basic correlation reporting; comparable to institutional portfolio analysis tools
Tracks user investment behavior over time (trading frequency, hold periods, panic selling during downturns, concentration in certain sectors) and uses this behavioral data to refine future recommendations. The system likely maintains a user behavior profile that captures deviations from the recommended strategy, then applies reinforcement learning or Bayesian updating to adjust recommendations toward allocations the user is more likely to actually follow. For example, if a user consistently sells during market dips, the system might recommend a more conservative allocation that the user can psychologically tolerate.
Unique: Uses behavioral data as a feedback signal to refine allocations toward psychologically sustainable strategies, rather than treating behavior as noise to be overcome. This creates a closed-loop system where recommendations converge toward allocations users can actually maintain through market cycles.
vs alternatives: More sophisticated than static robo-advisors which ignore behavioral patterns; potentially more effective than human advisors at detecting subtle behavioral patterns across large datasets
Decomposes a user's overall portfolio into sub-portfolios, each aligned to a specific financial goal (retirement, home purchase, education funding) with its own time horizon and risk profile. The system likely uses a goal-based asset allocation framework where each goal receives a dedicated allocation strategy, then aggregates these into a unified portfolio recommendation. It continuously tracks progress toward each goal (comparing projected vs. actual returns) and alerts users when a goal is at risk of being underfunded, enabling proactive strategy adjustments.
Unique: Implements goal-based portfolio decomposition where each goal receives a tailored allocation strategy based on its time horizon and importance, then aggregates into a unified portfolio. This differs from simple goal tracking by actually adjusting asset allocation per goal rather than applying a single allocation to all goals.
vs alternatives: More granular than traditional robo-advisors which apply a single allocation to all assets; more accessible than hiring a financial planner for multi-goal optimization
Analyzes user portfolio holdings against cost basis and current market prices to identify positions with unrealized losses that can be sold to offset capital gains or income. The system likely maintains a cost-basis database, monitors price movements, and applies tax-loss-harvesting rules (wash-sale rules, minimum holding periods) to generate actionable harvesting recommendations. It may also coordinate harvesting across multiple accounts (taxable, tax-deferred) to maximize tax efficiency while maintaining the user's target allocation.
Unique: Automates tax-loss-harvesting identification with wash-sale rule compliance and cross-account coordination, reducing manual tax planning overhead. The system likely uses a rules engine to enforce tax constraints while optimizing for tax savings.
vs alternatives: More systematic than manual tax planning; comparable to specialized tax-optimization platforms but integrated into the core recommendation engine
+5 more capabilities
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 MyInvestment-AI at 44/100. FinQA also has a free tier, making it more accessible.
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