Evaluating Financial Intelligence in Large Language Models: Benchmarking SuperInvesting AI with LLM Engines

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in financial research workflows, where their role is evolving from single-model assistance for human analysts toward autonomous collaboration among multiple agents. Yet real-world deployments still expose factual errors, numerical inconsistencies, and shallow analysis, which can distort assessments of corporate fundamentals and trigger severe economic losses. While existing benchmarks have begun to evaluate such failures, they score all aspects of the generated analysis in one pass, failing to distinguish whether a model fails at foundational stages like auditing and correction, or underperforms at generating research-grade insights. Consequently, it obscures capability bottlenecks and the specialized strengths essential for multi-agent role assignment. To address these gaps, we introduce FinReasoning, a hierarchical benchmark that decomposes the core capabilities of financial research into semantic consistency, data alignment, and deep insight. We further propose a fine-grained evaluation framework that strengthens hallucination-correction assessment and incorporates a 12-indicator rubric for core analytical skills. FinReasoning reveals clear capability stratification across model types. Closed-source models (like Doubao-Seed-1.8) perform strongly overall and are better suited for core reasoning agents in multi-agent financial systems; open-source general models (like Qwen3-235B) show clear capability divergence and consistently underperform on Semantic Consistency, making them less suited for quality-sensitive generation tasks; financial-domain models (like Fin-R1) generate moderate insights but lack foundational auditing skills. Our work has already been deployed in pilot tests across several real-world scenarios. The resource is available at https://github.com/TongjiFinLab/FinReasoning.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as AI analysts to process financial disclosures and support AI-assisted investment decisions. Yet such systems are usually evaluated by what they can retrieve, not whether retrieved information affects their judgments. We identify a retrieval-integration gap in long-context financial analysis. Holding focal-firm information fixed and varying only unrelated context from 2,000 to 128,000 tokens, we find that a risk disclosure's influence on investment judgments falls to the experimental noise floor even as direct retrieval remains accurate. The pattern replicates across model families and judgment tasks and in experiments removing real disclosures from actual 10-K filings. More capable models postpone but do not eliminate the gap. Causal memory interventions show that compressed summaries and source-text lookup jointly transmit disclosures into judgments. Workflow architecture determines whether this transmission succeeds: chunk-and-summarize pipelines evict relevant information, whereas a targeted, structured restatement adjacent to the decision restores its influence. AI analyst performance is therefore jointly determined by model capability and workflow architecture. Retrieval-based evaluations can certify systems whose investment judgments ignore information they demonstrably retrieved.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in financial contexts, raising critical concerns about reliability, alignment, and susceptibility to adversarial manipulation. While prior finance-related benchmarks assess LLMs' capabilities in stock trading, they are often restricted to small sample and fail to demonstrate LLM susceptibility to context with potential human bias. We introduce Fin-Bias (financial herding under long and uncertain financial context), a benchmark for evaluating LLM investment decision-making when faced with uncertainty and possible human-biased opinions. Fin-Bias includes 8868 long firm-specific analyst reports, including firm aspects summarized and analyzed by sophisticated analysts with investment ratings (Bullish/Neutral/Bearish) spanning from various industries. We present large language models with firm analyst reports with/without analyst investment ratings and even with 'fake' rating, to get investment ratings generated by LLMs. Our results reveal that LLMs tend to herd the explicit bias in context. We also develop a method to detect potential human opinions, which can encourage LLMs to think independently, some models even exceed human performance in predicting future stock return.