OpenPM: Auditable Point-in-Time Evaluation for LLM Portfolio-Management Agents

LLM agents are increasingly cast as autonomous portfolio managers, and benchmarks have moved from financial question-answering to sequential trading. Yet most still rank agents by returns over a fixed window -- a weak proxy, since a period's return is dominated by the market path and apparent alpha can dissolve once look-ahead leakage is controlled. Such a ranking certifies neither sound reasoning, nor a consistent strategy, nor a durable edge. We introduce CLQT, which reframes closed-loop trading evaluation as diagnosis rather than ranking: an instrument that localizes where and why an agent's process succeeds or fails. CLQT is a fully closed-loop, cost-aware, strategy-consistent, temporally-gated environment whose agents run a five-stage cycle: gather, synthesize, allocate, execute, reflect. Each round emits a complete DecisionRound sealed into a recompute-verifiable hash chain, so every metric is reconstructable from the trail. Six pillars form the substrate: a hard TimeGate, institutional transaction- and financing-cost modeling, strategy-consistency scoring, three-tier memory, a Model-Context-Protocol tool layer, and mandate-aware synthesis. The same agent runs as a constrained committee of specialized roles or a single full-autonomy orchestrator, making process scaffolding an experimental variable. From the audit trail we compute a five-axis capability scorecard (APM-CS: Coherence, Acuity, Composure, Discipline, Reliability), with Coherence judged partly by a held-out, out-of-cohort LLM to curb self-preference bias. We validate it on a contamination-controlled multi-model backtest with an ablation grid and a live broker track on unseen, post-cutoff data, against a repeated-run noise floor. CLQT separates outcome from capability, yielding not a model ranking but a durable, extensible map of agent competencies and limitations.

Large language models (LLMs) based agents are beginning to participate in portfolio construction and market analysis, where decisions must be justified under evolving information and risk constraints. Current assessment practice, however, remains poorly aligned with this setting: many studies rely on static examinations or report only terminal portfolio returns, while the intermediate evidence, analyst judgments, and execution steps that produced those returns stay largely invisible. We introduce NextFund, an evaluation platform that makes financial-agent behavior observable under live market conditions. The platform couples time-consistent market access, coordinated multi-agent analysis, and persistent logging of the full decision path from observation to trade. Through an interactive Trading Arena, users can compare models across markets, inspect equity curves, and drill from leaderboard outcomes down to individual justifications. We present NextFund on Hong Kong, U.S., and China A-share equities, illustrating how inspectable decision histories enable fairer benchmarking and more actionable diagnosis. Our demo is available at https://paradoox.cn/nextfund/.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown strong performance across diverse financial tasks, yet portfolio management (PM) remains poorly benchmarked. Existing benchmarks exhibit two gaps: they are often equity-only and ignore cross-asset correlations; they fail to evaluate the complete PM decision pipeline. We introduce PortBench, a benchmark spanning six heterogeneous asset classes from 2015 to 2025. PortBench comprises a static QA dataset of 6,269 questions across seven task templates and a dynamic five-stage allocation pipeline. To evaluate these layers, we introduce two metrics: a dual-layer correlation score for inter-class hedging and intra-class concentration, and CEPS, which quantifies how reasoning errors compound across pipeline stages. We further evaluate under three stress windows and three risk profiles, and support real-time evaluation to mitigate pretraining contamination on historical markets. Across ten frontier LLMs, strong financial QA performance fails to translate into superior portfolio performance: only 32.5% of 120 evaluations beat equal weighting on Sharpe across four market periods. Our source code is available at \href{https://github.com/AgenticFinLab/portbench}{this https URL}.