| 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Paid | Free |
| Capabilities | 11 decomposed | 7 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Ingests streaming market data from multiple broker and exchange APIs simultaneously, applies algorithmic transformations (normalization, deduplication, time-series alignment), and materializes processed datasets into queryable tables with sub-second latency. Uses event-driven architecture with buffering and backpressure handling to prevent data loss during market volatility spikes.
Unique: Implements automatic schema inference and format detection across heterogeneous broker APIs, eliminating manual mapping configuration that competitors like Refinitiv require. Uses adaptive buffering that scales throughput based on network jitter patterns rather than fixed batch sizes.
vs alternatives: 40-60% cheaper than Bloomberg/Refinitiv while handling real-time data ingestion at comparable latency; outperforms pandas-based DIY solutions by providing built-in deduplication and time-series alignment without custom code.
Provides a visual canvas where users compose dashboards by dragging chart, table, and gauge widgets onto a grid layout, binding each widget to data sources via point-and-click configuration. Generates responsive HTML/CSS/JavaScript under the hood, with automatic layout reflow for mobile devices. No code generation required — all configuration stored as declarative JSON that renders client-side.
Unique: Uses constraint-based layout engine (similar to CSS Grid) that automatically reflows widgets when data dimensions change, preventing manual repositioning. Implements real-time preview mode where dashboard updates as you adjust bindings, eliminating save-and-refresh cycles.
vs alternatives: Faster dashboard creation than Tableau/Power BI for financial use cases due to pre-built portfolio and market data templates; more intuitive than Grafana for non-technical users but less extensible than open-source alternatives.
Provides a formula editor where users define custom metrics by combining built-in metrics, portfolio data, and mathematical operations (sum, average, ratio, etc.). Formulas are evaluated server-side and results are cached for performance. Supports time-series formulas that compute metrics across historical periods. Custom metrics can be used in dashboards, reports, and alerts. Formula syntax is similar to Excel with autocomplete and validation.
Unique: Implements formula validation and optimization that detects unused sub-expressions and caches intermediate results, reducing computation time for complex formulas. Uses lazy evaluation where formulas are only computed when accessed, rather than eagerly computing all custom metrics.
vs alternatives: More flexible than fixed metric libraries but less powerful than full programming languages like Python; faster than Excel-based calculations because formulas are compiled and cached server-side.
Analyzes portfolio composition against user-defined risk parameters (volatility targets, sector exposure limits, correlation thresholds) using mean-variance optimization and Monte Carlo simulation. Generates rebalancing recommendations by solving a constrained optimization problem that minimizes transaction costs while achieving target allocations. Backtests recommendations against historical data before surfacing them to users.
Unique: Implements transaction-cost-aware optimization that models bid-ask spreads and commission schedules, preventing recommendations that appear optimal on paper but destroy value in execution. Uses warm-start solver initialization based on current allocations, reducing optimization time from minutes to seconds.
vs alternatives: More practical than academic portfolio optimization tools because it accounts for real trading costs; faster than manual advisor analysis but less sophisticated than institutional platforms like Morningstar that model tax-loss harvesting across multiple accounts.
Provides pre-built connectors for major financial data sources (Interactive Brokers, Alpaca, Yahoo Finance, etc.) that abstract away API authentication, pagination, and rate-limiting logic. Users configure connectors via UI forms specifying credentials and data ranges; the framework handles schema mapping by inferring column types and normalizing field names across sources. Custom connectors can be built via REST API templates without writing code.
Unique: Uses schema inference engine that analyzes sample API responses to automatically detect field types and relationships, eliminating manual schema definition for standard sources. Implements exponential backoff with jitter for rate-limit handling, preventing thundering herd problems when multiple dashboards refresh simultaneously.
vs alternatives: Simpler than building custom integrations with Zapier or Make because it understands financial data semantics (OHLCV formats, portfolio structures); more flexible than Bloomberg terminals because it supports arbitrary REST APIs via template configuration.
Schedules periodic report generation (daily, weekly, monthly) that combines portfolio data, performance metrics, and market commentary into branded PDF or HTML reports. Integrates with email systems to automatically distribute reports to client lists on specified schedules. Tracks delivery status and handles bounces/unsubscribes. Reports are generated server-side from dashboard templates, ensuring consistency across clients.
Unique: Uses dashboard-as-template pattern where reports are generated from the same visualizations used in live dashboards, ensuring data consistency and eliminating separate reporting logic. Implements client-specific filtering at report generation time, allowing a single template to serve 100+ clients with customized content.
vs alternatives: Faster than manual report creation in Excel/Word; more integrated than generic email marketing tools because it understands portfolio data semantics and can auto-populate client-specific metrics without manual configuration.
Transforms raw tick-level or minute-level market data into OHLCV (open, high, low, close, volume) bars at user-specified intervals (1-minute, hourly, daily, weekly). Handles edge cases like market gaps (weekends, holidays), corporate actions (splits, dividends), and missing data points. Supports multiple aggregation methods (VWAP, TWAP, last-price) for volume-weighted calculations. All transformations are vectorized using columnar operations for performance.
Unique: Uses columnar vectorized operations (similar to pandas/polars) that process entire columns at once rather than row-by-row, achieving 10-100x speedup on large datasets. Implements intelligent gap detection that distinguishes between legitimate market closures and data transmission failures.
vs alternatives: Faster than manual pandas-based resampling for large datasets due to vectorization; more robust than simple OHLCV calculation because it handles corporate actions and market gaps automatically.
Decomposes portfolio returns into components attributable to asset allocation decisions, security selection, and market factor exposure (beta, momentum, value, quality). Uses regression-based factor models (Fama-French, Carhart) to isolate alpha from beta. Supports both Brinson-Fachler attribution (comparing to benchmark) and factor-based attribution. Results are visualized as waterfall charts showing contribution of each decision.
Unique: Implements both Brinson-Fachler and factor-based attribution in a unified framework, allowing users to switch between approaches depending on whether they have a benchmark. Uses rolling-window regression for factor analysis, capturing how factor exposures change over time rather than assuming static betas.
vs alternatives: More accessible than building custom attribution models in R/Python; more comprehensive than simple return decomposition because it isolates alpha from beta and explains performance drivers.
+3 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 PineGap 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