| 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 11 decomposed | 7 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Executes LLM API calls directly within spreadsheet cells using a custom formula syntax (e.g., =PROMPTLOOP(prompt, model, parameters)), enabling users to process entire columns of data through language models without leaving their spreadsheet application. The system maintains bidirectional data binding between cells and API responses, automatically handling rate limiting, retry logic, and result caching to prevent duplicate API calls on formula recalculation.
Unique: Implements LLM execution as native spreadsheet formulas with automatic result caching and retry logic, eliminating the need for users to learn APIs or switch applications—the spreadsheet itself becomes the orchestration layer
vs alternatives: Faster context-switching than Zapier/Make (no workflow builder UI) and more accessible than Python scripts, but slower than dedicated batch processing APIs due to per-cell execution overhead
Abstracts API differences across OpenAI, Anthropic, Cohere, and other LLM providers through a unified parameter interface, allowing users to swap models (GPT-4, Claude, Command) within spreadsheet formulas without rewriting prompts or handling provider-specific authentication. The system translates common parameters (temperature, max_tokens, top_p) to provider-native formats and manages separate API keys per provider, enabling cost optimization by routing requests to the cheapest available model.
Unique: Implements a thin abstraction layer that translates unified parameter syntax to provider-native APIs, enabling model swapping without formula changes—similar to ORM patterns in databases but for LLM providers
vs alternatives: More flexible than single-provider tools (Copilot, ChatGPT) but less feature-complete than dedicated multi-provider frameworks (LangChain) due to spreadsheet formula constraints
Allows users to define custom functions (e.g., SENTIMENT_ANALYSIS, ENTITY_EXTRACTION) that encapsulate a prompt template, model selection, and output parsing logic. These functions can be reused across multiple spreadsheets and shared with team members, reducing duplication and enabling consistent prompt logic across projects. Functions support parameter binding, allowing callers to override specific aspects (model, temperature, output schema) without modifying the underlying prompt.
Unique: Implements user-defined functions as first-class abstractions in spreadsheets, enabling prompt logic encapsulation and reuse without requiring programming knowledge
vs alternatives: More accessible than LangChain's custom tools or OpenAI's custom GPTs but less flexible than general-purpose programming functions which support arbitrary logic and composition
Supports parameterized prompt templates using placeholder syntax (e.g., {{column_name}}, {{A1}}) that dynamically inject spreadsheet cell values into prompts at execution time. The system parses template strings, validates that referenced cells exist, and performs string interpolation before sending the final prompt to the LLM API, enabling reusable prompt patterns across multiple rows without manual editing.
Unique: Implements lightweight template substitution directly in spreadsheet formulas using cell references, avoiding the need for external template engines while maintaining spreadsheet-native data binding
vs alternatives: Simpler than Jinja2 or Handlebars templating but less powerful; more accessible to non-programmers than prompt frameworks like LangChain's PromptTemplate
Queues multiple LLM API calls triggered by spreadsheet formulas and executes them with configurable rate limiting (e.g., max 10 requests/second) and exponential backoff retry logic to handle transient API failures. The system tracks request state (pending, success, failed, retrying) per cell and prevents duplicate API calls if a formula is recalculated, using content-based deduplication to identify identical requests.
Unique: Implements transparent batch queuing and retry logic at the spreadsheet formula level, hiding API complexity from users while maintaining cell-level visibility into request state
vs alternatives: More user-friendly than raw API batch endpoints (no JSON formatting required) but less sophisticated than dedicated job orchestration systems (Temporal, Airflow) which offer fine-grained control and observability
Caches LLM API responses at the cell level using a content hash of the prompt as the cache key, preventing redundant API calls when formulas are recalculated or spreadsheets are reopened. Users can manually invalidate cache entries per cell or globally, and the system tracks cache hit/miss rates to show cost savings. Cache is persisted in PromptLoop's backend, not in the spreadsheet itself, enabling cache sharing across users editing the same sheet.
Unique: Implements transparent, content-addressed caching at the spreadsheet cell level with backend persistence, enabling cache sharing across users without requiring explicit cache management
vs alternatives: More convenient than manual result storage (copy-paste) but less flexible than application-level caching (Redis, Memcached) which supports TTL, invalidation policies, and distributed cache invalidation
Accepts a JSON schema definition from the user and validates LLM responses against that schema, extracting structured fields (e.g., sentiment, confidence, entities) from unstructured LLM output. The system uses schema-based prompting techniques (e.g., appending schema to the prompt or using function calling APIs) to encourage the LLM to output valid JSON, then parses and validates the response, returning individual fields as separate cell values or a single JSON object.
Unique: Integrates JSON schema validation directly into spreadsheet formulas, enabling structured data extraction without requiring users to write parsing logic or handle JSON manually
vs alternatives: More accessible than regex-based parsing or custom Python scripts but less flexible than dedicated data extraction tools (Zapier, Make) which support multiple output formats and error recovery strategies
Tracks API costs for each LLM call (based on token counts and provider pricing) and aggregates costs by model, provider, and time period. The system displays cost dashboards showing total spend, cost per row, and cost trends, enabling users to identify expensive operations and optimize spending. Cost data is tied to individual cells, allowing users to see which spreadsheet operations are most expensive.
Unique: Provides cell-level cost attribution and aggregation directly in spreadsheets, making API spending transparent without requiring external billing dashboards or manual cost calculation
vs alternatives: More granular than provider-native billing dashboards (which show account-level costs only) but less sophisticated than dedicated FinOps tools (Kubecost, CloudZero) which support complex cost allocation and chargeback models
+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 PromptLoop at 45/100.
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