| 1 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 13 decomposed | 7 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Crawls 11+ Chinese social platforms (Zhihu, Weibo, Bilibili, Douyin, etc.) and RSS feeds simultaneously, normalizing heterogeneous data schemas into a unified NewsItem model with platform-agnostic metadata. Uses platform-specific adapters that extract title, URL, hotness rank, and engagement metrics, then merges results into a single deduplicated feed ordered by composite hotness score (rank × 0.6 + frequency × 0.3 + platform_hot_value × 0.1).
Unique: Implements platform-specific adapter pattern with 11+ crawlers (Zhihu, Weibo, Bilibili, Douyin, etc.) plus RSS support, normalizing heterogeneous schemas into unified NewsItem model with composite hotness scoring (rank × 0.6 + frequency × 0.3 + platform_hot_value × 0.1) rather than simple ranking
vs alternatives: Covers more Chinese platforms than generic news aggregators (Feedly, Inoreader) and uses weighted composite scoring instead of single-metric ranking, making it superior for investors tracking multi-platform sentiment
Filters aggregated news against user-defined keyword lists (frequency_words.txt) using regex pattern matching and boolean logic (required keywords AND, excluded keywords NOT). Implements a scoring engine that weights matches by keyword frequency tier and calculates relevance scores. Supports regex patterns, case-insensitive matching, and multi-language keyword sets. Articles matching filter criteria are retained; non-matching articles are discarded before analysis and notification stages.
Unique: Implements multi-tier keyword frequency weighting (high/medium/low priority keywords) with regex pattern support and boolean AND/NOT logic, scoring articles by keyword match density rather than simple presence/absence checks
vs alternatives: More flexible than simple keyword whitelisting (supports regex and exclusion rules) but simpler than ML-based relevance ranking, making it suitable for rule-driven curation without ML infrastructure
Detects newly trending topics by comparing current aggregated feed against historical baseline (previous execution results). Marks new topics with 🆕 emoji and calculates trend velocity (rate of rank change) to identify rapidly rising topics. Implements configurable sensitivity thresholds to distinguish genuine new trends from noise. Stores historical snapshots to enable trend trajectory analysis and prediction.
Unique: Implements new topic detection by comparing current feed against historical baseline with configurable sensitivity thresholds. Calculates trend velocity (rank change rate) to identify rapidly rising topics and marks new trends with 🆕 emoji. Stores historical snapshots for trend trajectory analysis.
vs alternatives: More sophisticated than simple rank-based detection because it considers trend velocity and historical context; more practical than ML-based anomaly detection because it uses simple thresholding without model training; enables early-stage trend detection vs. mainstream coverage
Supports region-specific content filtering and display preferences (e.g., show only Mainland China trends, exclude Hong Kong/Taiwan content, or vice versa). Implements per-region keyword lists and notification channel routing (e.g., send Mainland China trends to WeChat, international trends to Telegram). Allows users to configure multiple region profiles and switch between them based on monitoring focus.
Unique: Implements region-specific content filtering with per-region keyword lists and channel routing. Supports multiple region profiles (Mainland China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, international) with independent keyword configurations and notification channel assignments.
vs alternatives: More flexible than single-region solutions because it supports multiple geographic markets simultaneously; more practical than manual region filtering because it automates routing based on platform metadata; enables region-specific monitoring vs. global aggregation
Abstracts deployment environment differences through unified execution mode interface. Detects runtime environment (GitHub Actions, Docker container, local Python) and applies mode-specific configuration (storage backend, notification channels, scheduling mechanism). Supports seamless migration between deployment modes without code changes. Implements environment-specific error handling and logging (e.g., GitHub Actions annotations for CI/CD visibility).
Unique: Implements execution mode abstraction detecting GitHub Actions, Docker, and local Python environments with automatic configuration switching. Applies mode-specific optimizations (storage backend, scheduling, logging) without code changes.
vs alternatives: More flexible than single-mode solutions because it supports multiple deployment options; more maintainable than separate codebases because it uses unified codebase with mode-specific configuration; more user-friendly than manual mode configuration because it auto-detects environment
Sends filtered news articles to LiteLLM, which abstracts over multiple LLM providers (OpenAI, Anthropic, Ollama, local models, etc.) to generate structured analysis including sentiment classification, key entity extraction, trend prediction, and executive summaries. Uses configurable system prompts and temperature settings per provider. Results are cached to avoid redundant API calls and formatted as structured JSON for downstream processing and notification delivery.
Unique: Uses LiteLLM abstraction layer to support 50+ LLM providers (OpenAI, Anthropic, Ollama, local models, etc.) with unified interface, allowing provider switching via config without code changes. Implements in-memory result caching and structured JSON output parsing with fallback to raw text.
vs alternatives: More flexible than single-provider solutions (e.g., direct OpenAI API) because it supports cost-effective provider switching and local model fallback; more robust than custom provider integration because LiteLLM handles retries and error handling
Translates article titles and summaries from Chinese to English (or other target languages) using LiteLLM-abstracted LLM providers with automatic fallback to alternative providers if primary provider fails. Maintains translation cache to avoid redundant API calls for identical content. Supports batch translation of multiple articles in single API call to reduce latency and cost. Integrates with notification system to deliver translated content to non-Chinese-speaking users.
Unique: Implements LiteLLM-based translation with automatic provider fallback and in-memory caching, supporting batch translation of multiple articles per API call to optimize latency and cost. Integrates seamlessly with multi-channel notification system for language-specific delivery.
vs alternatives: More cost-effective than dedicated translation APIs (Google Translate, DeepL) when using cheaper LLM providers; supports automatic fallback unlike single-provider solutions; batch processing reduces per-article cost vs. sequential translation
Distributes filtered and analyzed news to 9+ notification channels (WeChat, WeWork, Feishu, Telegram, Email, ntfy, Bark, Slack, etc.) using channel-specific adapters. Implements atomic message batching to group multiple articles into single notification payloads, respecting per-channel rate limits and message size constraints. Supports channel-specific formatting (Markdown for Slack, card format for WeWork, plain text for Email). Includes retry logic with exponential backoff for failed deliveries and delivery status tracking.
Unique: Implements channel-specific adapter pattern for 9+ notification platforms with atomic message batching that respects per-channel rate limits and message size constraints. Supports heterogeneous formatting (Markdown for Slack, card format for WeWork, plain text for Email) from single article payload.
vs alternatives: More comprehensive than single-channel solutions (e.g., email-only) and more flexible than generic webhook systems because it handles platform-specific formatting and rate limiting automatically; atomic batching reduces notification fatigue vs. per-article delivery
+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 TrendRadar at 41/100. TrendRadar leads on ecosystem, while FinQA is stronger on adoption and quality.
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