| 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 7 decomposed | 7 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Stocknews AI continuously ingests and normalizes financial news from 100+ heterogeneous sources (news wires, financial blogs, social media, SEC filings platforms) into a unified feed. The system likely uses web scraping, RSS feed parsing, and API integrations to pull raw content, then applies NLP-based deduplication and timestamp normalization to surface unique stories across sources. Real-time ingestion means new articles appear within minutes of publication rather than hourly batch processing.
Unique: Aggregates from 100+ sources (vs. Bloomberg Terminal's ~50 curated sources or Yahoo Finance's limited feed) with claimed real-time ingestion, eliminating the manual tab-switching workflow that retail investors endure. Architecture likely uses distributed scrapers + message queue (Kafka/RabbitMQ) for throughput rather than centralized polling.
vs alternatives: Broader source coverage than free alternatives (Yahoo Finance, MarketWatch) and real-time speed of paid terminals, but without institutional-grade source vetting or corrections handling that Bloomberg provides.
Stocknews AI applies machine learning models to rank and filter aggregated news by relevance to investors. The system likely uses transformer-based embeddings (BERT, GPT-derived models) to compute semantic similarity between articles and user context, combined with heuristic signals (source authority, article age, mention frequency across sources) to surface market-moving stories. Curation reduces noise by deprioritizing duplicate coverage, press releases, and low-signal market chatter while elevating novel insights and consensus-shifting information.
Unique: Applies semantic ranking to 100+ sources in real-time, attempting to surface signal over noise via transformer embeddings and heuristic signals. Unlike Bloomberg Terminal's manual editorial curation, this is fully automated and scales to high-volume ingestion. Unlike simple recency-based feeds, it uses learned relevance rather than publish timestamp.
vs alternatives: Faster and more scalable than manual editorial curation (Bloomberg, WSJ) but lacks institutional credibility and source vetting; more sophisticated than recency-based feeds (Yahoo Finance) but less transparent about ranking criteria than human-curated alternatives.
Stocknews AI surfaces news across all publicly traded companies and sectors without requiring users to pre-specify watchlists or interests. The system ingests news for the entire market universe and presents a global feed, allowing users to discover stories about companies they may not be actively tracking. This is distinct from watchlist-based systems (Bloomberg Terminal, E*TRADE) that require explicit ticker selection before news is shown.
Unique: Presents a market-wide feed without requiring users to pre-specify tickers or sectors, enabling serendipitous discovery. Most competitors (Bloomberg, E*TRADE, Seeking Alpha) require watchlist setup before showing news, creating friction for exploratory research.
vs alternatives: Lower barrier to entry than watchlist-based systems (no setup required) but creates information overload compared to curated alternatives; better for discovery than for focused portfolio tracking.
Stocknews AI delivers curated news to users via a continuously-updating web interface, likely using WebSocket connections or server-sent events (SSE) to push new articles to the browser as they are ingested and ranked. The feed updates in real-time without requiring page refreshes, enabling users to monitor breaking news as it happens. The interface likely includes basic sorting (recency, relevance) and search functionality.
Unique: Delivers news via real-time streaming (WebSocket/SSE) rather than polling or batch updates, creating a live ticker experience. Most free news sites use polling (refresh every 30-60 seconds) or require manual refresh; this approach mimics premium terminals like Bloomberg.
vs alternatives: Real-time streaming creates faster perceived updates than polling-based competitors (Yahoo Finance, MarketWatch) but requires more server resources and may have reliability issues on unstable networks compared to traditional page-refresh models.
Stocknews AI preserves source attribution for each article, displaying the original news outlet (Reuters, Bloomberg, CNBC, etc.) and providing direct links to full articles. The system aggregates multiple sources covering the same story, allowing users to compare coverage across outlets. This enables readers to verify information, check for bias, and access full context from their preferred news source.
Unique: Preserves and displays source attribution for each article, enabling users to access original outlets and compare coverage. Unlike some AI news summaries (e.g., ChatGPT summaries) that may obscure sources, Stocknews AI maintains full traceability to original reporting.
vs alternatives: More transparent than AI-only summaries (ChatGPT, Perplexity) but less curated than editorial aggregators (Hacker News, The Verge) that add human judgment about source credibility.
Stocknews AI offers full access to its news aggregation and curation features without requiring account creation, login, or payment. Users can visit the website and immediately access the curated news feed. This removes friction compared to freemium models that gate features behind login or trial periods. The business model sustainability is unclear (likely ad-supported or data collection for training).
Unique: Offers full feature access without login, account creation, or payment, eliminating friction for casual users. Most competitors (Bloomberg Terminal, E*TRADE, Seeking Alpha) require authentication and/or payment for any access. This is a deliberate product choice to maximize user acquisition.
vs alternatives: Lower barrier to entry than any paid alternative (Bloomberg Terminal, Refinitiv) or freemium service (Seeking Alpha, Yahoo Finance) that requires login; sustainability and monetization are unclear compared to established competitors with proven business models.
Stocknews AI applies an undisclosed AI curation algorithm to rank and filter news, but the system provides no transparency into how relevance is determined, what signals are weighted, or how the model was trained. Users cannot understand why certain articles are ranked higher, what data the model was trained on, or how to adjust curation to their preferences. This is a significant limitation for professional users who need to understand and potentially audit their information sources.
Unique: Provides zero transparency into curation methodology, training data, or ranking signals. Unlike some competitors (e.g., Seeking Alpha, which discloses its editorial process), Stocknews AI offers no insight into how its AI works or how to interpret its rankings.
vs alternatives: Simplicity and ease of use (no configuration required) vs. transparency and auditability of human-curated services (Bloomberg, WSJ) or open-source alternatives that publish their ranking logic.
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 Stocknews AI 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