| 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 9 decomposed | 7 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Accepts free-form natural language questions about stocks, market trends, and financial metrics, then routes them through an LLM-based query parser that translates user intent into structured data requests. The system interprets colloquial financial terminology (e.g., 'Is Apple overvalued?', 'What's the tech sector doing?') and maps these to underlying market data APIs, returning conversational responses rather than raw database results.
Unique: Uses LLM-based intent parsing to translate colloquial financial questions directly into market data API calls, eliminating the need for users to learn ticker symbols, financial metrics terminology, or database query syntax. Most competitors require structured input (ticker + metric selection) or charge for natural language access.
vs alternatives: More accessible than Bloomberg Terminal or FactSet for casual users because it removes the learning curve of financial databases, but less reliable than professional tools because LLM parsing can hallucinate or misinterpret financial intent.
Integrates with multiple real-time market data providers (likely Yahoo Finance, Alpha Vantage, or similar free/freemium APIs) to fetch current stock prices, volume, intraday movements, and sector performance. Implements a caching layer to reduce API call frequency and costs, with TTL-based invalidation to balance freshness against rate limits. The system normalizes data from heterogeneous sources into a unified schema before serving to the LLM context.
Unique: Abstracts away the complexity of integrating multiple free market data APIs by normalizing heterogeneous schemas and implementing intelligent caching with TTL-based invalidation. Most competitors either lock data behind paywalls or require users to manage API integrations themselves.
vs alternatives: Cheaper than professional data terminals (Bloomberg, FactSet) because it leverages free APIs, but less reliable and slower because free providers have rate limits and delayed updates compared to institutional-grade feeds.
Takes aggregated market data and user queries, then uses an LLM (likely GPT-3.5 or similar) to generate contextual financial analysis, trend interpretation, and investment thesis summaries. The system constructs prompts that inject current market data, historical context, and financial metrics into the LLM's context window, then post-processes outputs to extract key insights. No human financial analyst reviews outputs before serving to users.
Unique: Combines real-time market data injection with LLM-based analysis to generate contextual financial narratives without human analyst review. Unlike professional research firms, it prioritizes speed and accessibility over accuracy and accountability, making it fundamentally a supplementary tool rather than a primary research layer.
vs alternatives: Faster and cheaper than hiring a financial analyst or subscribing to research platforms, but unreliable for critical investment decisions because LLMs hallucinate financial facts and lack accountability standards of licensed advisors.
Enables users to query multiple stocks simultaneously and receive comparative metrics (valuation ratios, growth rates, sector positioning, relative performance). The system batches ticker lookups to minimize API calls, aggregates results into a unified comparison table, and uses the LLM to generate narrative comparisons (e.g., 'Stock A is cheaper than Stock B on a P/E basis but has slower growth'). Supports sector-level aggregation to identify relative strength across industries.
Unique: Automates multi-stock comparison by batching API calls and using LLM-generated narratives to explain relative positioning, eliminating manual spreadsheet work. Most free tools require users to manually pull data for each stock; professional tools charge for this capability.
vs alternatives: More accessible than FactSet or Bloomberg for casual comparison, but less reliable because LLM-generated comparisons can miss accounting nuances and statistical significance that professional analysts would catch.
Maintains conversation history within a user session, allowing follow-up questions that reference previous queries without re-stating context (e.g., 'How does that compare to its 52-week high?' after asking about current price). The system stores recent queries and responses in session state, injects relevant context into subsequent LLM prompts, and manages context window size to avoid exceeding token limits. No persistent storage across sessions; history is cleared when user closes the browser.
Unique: Implements lightweight session-based context management that allows multi-turn financial conversations without requiring users to repeat context, while avoiding the complexity and cost of persistent storage. Most free financial tools are single-query interfaces; professional platforms charge for conversation history.
vs alternatives: More conversational than traditional financial databases or search engines, but less persistent than professional research platforms because session memory is ephemeral and not cross-device.
Aggregates market data across multiple stocks within a sector to compute sector-level metrics (average P/E, median growth rate, sector momentum, relative strength vs. S&P 500). Uses LLM to interpret these aggregates and identify sector rotation patterns, leadership changes, and macroeconomic drivers. Supports hierarchical sector classification (e.g., Technology > Software > SaaS) to enable drill-down analysis.
Unique: Automates sector-level analysis by aggregating constituent stock data and using LLM to interpret macro trends, eliminating manual spreadsheet work. Most free tools focus on individual stocks; sector analysis is typically locked behind professional platforms.
vs alternatives: More accessible than professional sector research tools, but less reliable because aggregation logic is opaque and LLM narratives can overfit to recent price movements rather than fundamental drivers.
Extracts key financial metrics (P/E ratio, dividend yield, debt-to-equity, ROE, free cash flow, earnings growth) from market data APIs and normalizes them into a consistent schema. Handles missing data gracefully (e.g., dividend yield is N/A for non-dividend stocks) and computes derived metrics (e.g., PEG ratio from P/E and growth rate). Provides both raw metrics and LLM-generated interpretations (e.g., 'P/E of 15 is below historical average, suggesting undervaluation').
Unique: Normalizes heterogeneous fundamental data from free APIs into a consistent schema and provides LLM-generated interpretations, making financial metrics accessible to non-technical users. Most free tools either show raw metrics without context or charge for interpreted analysis.
vs alternatives: More accessible than financial databases for casual users because it explains metrics in plain English, but less reliable than professional research because metrics are stale and lack accounting adjustments.
Allows users to create watchlists of stocks and set price-based alerts (e.g., 'notify me if Apple drops below $150'). Stores watchlist state in browser session or optional user account, periodically polls market data APIs to check alert conditions, and triggers notifications when thresholds are breached. Supports multiple alert types (price level, percentage change, volume spike) and notification channels (in-app, email if account is linked).
Unique: Provides lightweight watchlist and alert management without requiring paid subscriptions or complex setup, leveraging free market data APIs and browser-based state management. Most free tools lack alert functionality; professional platforms charge for this feature.
vs alternatives: More accessible than paid alert services because it's free and requires no setup, but less reliable because polling frequency is limited by API rate limits and alerts may trigger with significant delays.
+1 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 StockGPT at 40/100.
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