| 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Paid | Free |
| Capabilities | 11 decomposed | 7 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Automatically scans multiple cryptocurrency trading pairs simultaneously to identify technical patterns (support/resistance levels, moving average crossovers, candlestick formations) using machine learning models trained on historical OHLCV data. The system processes real-time market feeds from connected exchanges, extracts feature vectors from price action, and classifies patterns against a learned model to surface actionable signals without manual chart analysis.
Unique: Applies supervised ML models to multi-timeframe OHLCV data for simultaneous pattern detection across dozens of pairs, rather than rule-based indicator stacking or manual visual analysis. Likely uses feature engineering on candlestick geometry, volume profiles, and momentum indicators fed into classification models.
vs alternatives: Faster than manual chart analysis and more scalable than traditional indicator-based bots, but lacks the interpretability and customization of open-source frameworks like Freqtrade or CCXT-based solutions.
Synthesizes multiple technical and market microstructure signals (pattern matches, momentum indicators, volatility regimes, order book imbalances) into unified buy/sell recommendations with attached confidence scores. The system uses an ensemble approach or weighted scoring model to combine heterogeneous signal sources, then ranks opportunities by expected risk-adjusted return or Sharpe ratio to prioritize execution.
Unique: Combines multiple heterogeneous signal sources (technical patterns, momentum, volatility, microstructure) into a single ranked recommendation with confidence scoring, rather than requiring traders to manually weight or combine indicators. Likely uses gradient boosting or neural network ensemble to learn optimal signal weighting from historical trade outcomes.
vs alternatives: More actionable than raw indicator feeds (TradingView alerts) because it synthesizes conflicting signals, but less transparent than open-source signal frameworks where users can inspect and tune individual components.
Connects to multiple cryptocurrency exchange accounts (Binance, Coinbase, Kraken, etc.) via API keys, aggregates account balances and positions, and maintains synchronized state across all exchanges. The system handles API authentication, manages rate limits, reconciles positions with trade history, and detects discrepancies (e.g., trades executed outside Wisdomise). Traders can manage all accounts from a single interface without logging into each exchange separately.
Unique: Aggregates account state from multiple exchange APIs, maintains synchronized position tracking, and provides unified portfolio visibility across all connected exchanges. Handles API authentication, rate limiting, and reconciliation without requiring traders to manage each exchange separately.
vs alternatives: More convenient than manually checking each exchange account, but introduces API key security risks and reconciliation complexity that self-hosted solutions (CCXT-based bots) can avoid by running locally.
Executes buy/sell orders directly on connected cryptocurrency exchanges (Binance, Coinbase, Kraken) based on AI-generated signals, handling order placement, partial fills, slippage management, and position sizing without manual intervention. The system maintains authenticated connections to exchange APIs, implements order routing logic (market vs limit orders, order splitting for large positions), and tracks execution metrics (fill price, fees, slippage) for post-trade analysis.
Unique: Directly integrates with exchange REST/WebSocket APIs to execute orders without user intervention, implementing order routing logic (market vs limit, order splitting) and slippage management. Maintains authenticated sessions and handles rate limiting, partial fills, and order status tracking natively rather than delegating to external execution services.
vs alternatives: Faster than manual order placement and more reliable than copy-trading services, but introduces counterparty risk with exchange APIs and lacks the transparency of self-hosted bots using open-source libraries like CCXT.
Simulates trading strategy performance against historical OHLCV data to estimate expected returns, drawdowns, win rates, and Sharpe ratios before deploying to live markets. The system replays historical price action, applies signal generation logic to each candle, executes trades at simulated prices, and accounts for slippage, fees, and position sizing to produce realistic performance metrics. Results are aggregated into equity curves, trade-by-trade P&L, and statistical summaries.
Unique: Replays historical market data with signal generation logic applied to each candle, simulating order execution with configurable slippage and fee models to produce realistic performance estimates. Likely uses vectorized OHLCV processing (NumPy/Pandas) for fast simulation across large datasets rather than tick-by-tick replay.
vs alternatives: More integrated than standalone backtesting tools (Backtrader, VectorBT) because it uses the same signal generation models as live trading, but less transparent than open-source frameworks where users can inspect and modify backtesting logic.
Continuously monitors open positions across all connected exchange accounts, calculates unrealized P&L, tracks realized gains/losses from closed trades, and displays portfolio metrics (total balance, allocation by pair, leverage ratio) with real-time updates. The system aggregates account state from multiple exchanges, reconciles positions with trade history, and computes performance attribution to identify which trades and pairs are driving overall returns.
Unique: Aggregates real-time account state from multiple exchange APIs, reconciles positions with trade history, and computes performance attribution across pairs and strategies. Maintains persistent position tracking and P&L calculations without requiring users to manually reconcile exchange statements.
vs alternatives: More convenient than manually checking each exchange account, but less comprehensive than dedicated portfolio tracking tools (CoinTracker, Koinly) which include tax reporting and cost-basis tracking.
Allows users to define custom entry/exit rules, position sizing logic, and risk management parameters through a configuration interface (likely UI-based rule builder or JSON/YAML config files). The system interprets these rules during signal generation and execution, enabling traders to encode domain knowledge and risk preferences without modifying code. Rules can reference technical indicators, account state, and market conditions to create conditional trading logic.
Unique: Provides a rule configuration interface (UI or config files) that allows traders to define custom entry/exit logic, position sizing, and risk management without code. Rules are interpreted at runtime during signal generation and execution, enabling fast iteration without redeployment.
vs alternatives: More accessible than code-based strategy frameworks (Freqtrade, Backtrader) for non-technical traders, but less flexible than full programming languages for expressing complex conditional logic.
Automatically places stop-loss and take-profit orders based on user-defined risk parameters (max loss percentage, profit target, risk-reward ratio) when trades are executed. The system calculates stop-loss and take-profit prices from entry price and position size, submits orders to the exchange, and monitors for fills. If a stop-loss is hit, the position is closed to limit losses; if take-profit is hit, the position is closed to lock in gains.
Unique: Automatically calculates and submits stop-loss and take-profit orders to the exchange based on user-defined risk parameters, enforcing consistent risk management rules across all trades without manual intervention. Integrates with exchange order management to track and execute these protective orders.
vs alternatives: More reliable than manual stop-loss placement because it's automated and consistent, but subject to exchange execution risks (slippage, gaps) that manual traders can sometimes avoid through discretionary judgment.
+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 Wisdomise at 43/100. 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