Financial Reasoning Benchmarks

Follow this topic Ask about this topic

Latest papers

31 papers3 papers in the last four weeks, against 2 the four weeks before. 0.0% of all new papers.

Oct 19, 2026

FinHopper: A Progressive Multi-Hop Benchmark for Complex Financial Agents with Step-wise Evaluation

Financial agents are expected to answer factual investment queries through open search, but financial multi-hop retrieval differs from general multi-hop QA in a crucial way: each intermediate answer is an exact typed constraint, such as an entity, date, event, or numerical indicator, that determines the next query. This strict answer-conditioned dependency makes small intermediate errors cascade into plausible but wrong search trajectories. We introduce FinHopper, a benchmark for complex financial agents with controlled reasoning depth from 1 to 6 hops, covering stocks, funds, and macroeconomic facts, with gold intermediate answers for process-level evaluation. To construct FinHopper at scale, we design a state-transition-based synthesis framework that composes verified atomic financial QA patterns into dependency-preserving chains, followed by targeted in-synthesis verification, model-ensemble checking, and public-search validation by financial experts. Experiments with 20 LLM-agent configurations show that public search tools are necessary but insufficient: performance drops sharply as hop depth increases, the best model remains far below human experts, and process-aware scoring reveals partial reasoning progress hidden by final-answer-only evaluation. The benchmark is available at https://github.com/justajustin/FinHopper/.

Yuxuan Wu, Miaopei Lin, Qiufang Ying +9

South China University of Technology · FiT, Tencent · Shenzhen Technology University

Financial QA Financial Reasoning Benchmarks Multi-Hop QA Process-Based Agent Evaluation

Sep 28, 2026

FinAutoRubric: Expert-Guided Automatic Rubric Generation for Evaluating Financial Research Agents

Evaluating finance research agents requires rubrics that reflect expert standards and fix the values correct as of an information cutoff. Expert-reviewed finance benchmarks rely on fixed, per-item rubrics, which are costly to extend and cannot encode each institution's own standard. In FinAutoRubric, experts specify reusable evaluation guidance, while agents and code carry out query-specific rubric generation, review, and validation. This expert guidance governs every agent, as prompts and as rules that code enforces, and a Task Bank of reusable criteria carries it across tasks. In long-horizon loops that follow the expert guidance, a writer agent researches every expected value and a reviewer agent verifies it, and failures escalate to a human. On three expert-authored finance benchmarks, its rubrics track expert scoring as closely as the strongest evaluated generator while stating the expert rubric's expected value for more criteria, their scores agree with human grading, and in-house analysts prefer them in a blind review. The released 100-query FinAutoRubric Benchmark, built from in-house analysts' key questions across 78 tasks and eight asset classes, shows that rubrics from an earlier model generation still leave headroom for a later one.

Hoyoung Lee, Suyeol Yun, Jack Haverty +17

LinqAlpha · UNIST · MassMutual Life Insurance +9

Automatic Rubric Generation LLM Agent Evaluation Rubric-Based Evaluation Rubric-Guided Generation Financial Reasoning Benchmarks

Sep 21, 2026

FinFIRST: Benchmarking Search Agents for Financial Information Retrieval, Sourcing and Traceability

Financial search is a highly demanding task for LLM agents, requiring not only a correct final answer but also temporally valid information retrieval, authoritative source selection, entity and period alignment, unit and definition consistency, and verifiable evidence for all conclusions. Existing benchmarks predominantly evaluate only the final answer, making it difficult to localize errors or assess whether an answer is well-founded. To address this gap, we introduce FinFIRST (Financial Information Retrieval, Sourcing and Traceability), the first financial benchmark to jointly evaluate answers and supporting evidence through atomic rubrics. FinFIRST comprises 123 expert-authored tasks spanning a graduated difficulty spectrum, constructed from aggregate patterns of real-world financial scenarios through an 18-field taxonomy, a six-axis coverage blueprint, a registry of 138 financial sources, contributions from over 50 finance experts, and a six-stage quality-control pipeline. Each task is accompanied by an evidence-grounded reference package decomposed into atomic criteria across three dimensions: raw-information acquisition, source verification, and computation and answer formation. We evaluate 15 model configurations under a unified tool setting. Claude-Opus-5 achieves the highest atomic score of 87.59%, while GPT-5.6-Sol attains the highest strict pass rate of 71.54%. Computation and answer formation consistently lag behind raw-information acquisition across systems. FinFIRST retains final-answer correctness as the primary objective while making the supporting research process measurable, verifiable, and diagnosable.

Wenqing Wang, Haitao Xiang, Xinyi Zhao +8

Ling Team, Inclusion AI · Peking University · China International Capital Corporation Limited

Financial QA AI Agent Benchmarks Information Retrieval IR Evaluation Evidence Retrieval Financial Reasoning Benchmarks

Sep 21, 2026

FinInteract: Benchmarking Clarification and Intent Integration in Ambiguous Financial Question Answering

Large language model agents increasingly answer financial questions by searching regulatory filings. Such questions are often deceptively under-specified: Meta Platforms' "operating income" is

46.75B consolidated but

62.87B for the Family of Apps segment, and each reading is exactly verifiable against the filing. A capable agent should recognize the ambiguity and ask, rather than commit to a plausible but unintended reading. Existing financial benchmarks cannot measure this, because one gold answer per question cannot separate agents that resolve the ambiguity from those that guess the common reading, a blind spot we call the single-gold illusion. We release FinInteract, a bilingual (English/Chinese) benchmark of 173 instances that pairs each question with a default and an intended interpretation across a five-category ambiguity taxonomy, and grades whether an agent elicits the right clarification and then integrates it. Re-grading identical outputs against the default rather than the intended reading inflates GPT-4o's accuracy by 3.1 times, confirming the illusion. Beyond it, we find that models answer above 90% once the interpretation is supplied but at most 28.9% when they must elicit it themselves, that targeting is uneven across a taxonomy well powered for entity scope and metric definition and exploratory elsewhere, and that conditioning on the ambiguity category improves resolution at both inference and training time.

Xinyu Wang, Tung Sum Thomas Kwok, Zhenghan Tai +1

McGill University · University of California, Los Angeles · University of Toronto

Financial QA Financial Language Model Evaluation Financial Reasoning Benchmarks LLM Agent Evaluation Clarification Question Generation

Sep 13, 2026

E2A-Bench: Benchmarking Evidence-to-Action Reliability in Financial Chart Reasoning

Can financial vision-language models (VLMs) turn chart evidence into reliable action recommendations? Existing hallucination evaluations are mostly claim-centric; they assess whether generated statements are supported, but not whether evidence remains traceable through rationale, confidence, and final action. We introduce E2A-Bench, a 969-query benchmark for financial chart reasoning, constructed from 323 HS300 constituents under three input modalities with deterministic OHLCV-derived evidence anchors. E2A-Bench evaluates grounding, reasoning-action consistency, evidence-confidence calibration, and directional coverage through UCR, RCI, ECI, and NDR, where NDR measures coverage-aware evidence-to-action reliability rather than realized trading performance. Evaluating 20 VLMs reveals three failures hidden by scalar hallucination scores: the lowest-UCR model ranks near the bottom by NDR due to only 6.4% directional coverage; oracle-aided verification reduces unsupported claims but can collapse coverage; and financial fine-tuning amplifies the BUY:SELL ratio by factors of 4.21 to 4.68 across strict base-fine-tuned pairs. These results show that financial VLM evaluation should trace the full evidence-to-action chain rather than rely on a single hallucination score. Code and data: https://github.com/wanng-ide/E2A-Bench

Xiaoya Wang, Yutong Xu, Junjie Wang

Tsinghua University · Jinan University

Confidence Estimation for VLMs Financial Reasoning Benchmarks VLM Evaluation Chart Understanding

Aug 28, 2026

FinExam-10K: When Retrieval Helps Financial Reasoning?

Professional financial examinations require models to combine domain knowledge, calculation, and judgment, yet no benchmark covers the full CFA and FRM structure under one protocol. We introduce FinExam-10K, to our knowledge the largest reported English benchmark for this setting, with 10,198 expert-reannotated questions spanning CFA Levels I-III and FRM Parts I-II. We release 5,110 questions and sequester 5,088 for a quarterly maintained leaderboard. To separate coverage from local answerability, we report a 10,198-item Full-Coverage Track and a 7,625-item Context-Complete Reasoning Track, which is the primary basis for claims about reasoning from the supplied record. Across 17 models, the best accuracy is 85.29% overall. On the frozen Hard band, the best score is 34.68% on the Full-Coverage Track and 54.57% on the 372 context-complete items. All 17 models share 47 context-complete failures. Function-RAG and FunctionGraph-RAG rescue hundreds of errors but also overturn many correct answers, producing little or negative net gain. A gate trained only on public data decides from the question and initial response when FunctionGraph-RAG should run. On the 5,088 held-out items, the gate invokes FunctionGraph-RAG for 7.9% of questions and improves accuracy from 70.83% to 71.23% (p = .0446).

Yan Lin, Jingyu Sun, Zhongliang Guo +3

INSAIT, Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski” · Newcastle University · University of Manchester +4

Financial Reasoning Benchmarks Financial QA LLM Evaluation Retrieval-Augmented Generation Adaptive Retrieval

Aug 19, 2026

FinRCA-Bench: Benchmarking Evidence Retrieval and Reasoning for Financial AI Systems

Large language models are increasingly used to support financial operations, but their apparent reasoning performance can depend on whether they receive the right evidence. In financial reconciliation, the evidence needed for diagnosis is distributed across invoices, purchase orders, approvals, allocations, payments, ledger entries, and bank activity, linked by transactional relationships rather than textual similarity. End-to-end accuracy can therefore conflate evidence access with reasoning quality. We introduce FinRCA-Bench, a deterministic synthetic benchmark of 2,250 accounts-payable-to-bank reconciliation cases spanning 14 operational tables, including 1,500 injected failures across 15 causal categories and 750 legitimate or hard-negative cases. Root-cause labels and record-level evidence contracts are hidden from the model, allowing retrieval to be evaluated independently of answer correctness. We compare Rules/SQL, classical machine learning, dense semantic retrieval, deterministic relational expansion, and Typed Provenance Graph Retrieval (TPGR), a typed traversal restricted to persisted transaction relationships. Rules/SQL reaches 84.97% held-out exact accuracy and classical ML reaches 95.44%. Holding the reasoning model, prompt, and generation settings fixed while changing only retrieval increases macro required-record recall from 0.83% to 77.70% and exact 16-class accuracy from 2.05% to 72.44%. Structural retrieval failures outnumber reasoning failures with sufficient retrieval by 95 to 15; 254 correct predictions occur despite incomplete retrieval, and strict returned-evidence contract accuracy is only 5.72%. On FinRCA-Bench, retrieval architecture strongly shapes observed AI-system performance, and a correct root-cause label is a weak proxy for an auditable diagnosis.

Pratik Ghawate

Researcher

Financial Reasoning Benchmarks Evidence Retrieval Root Cause Analysis

Aug 12, 2026

FrontierFinance: A Challenging Benchmark for Measuring Frontier Intelligence of Finance Agents

AI agents are increasingly deployed for professional investment research, yet no benchmark captures the complexity of the full investor workflow. Existing benchmarks mainly target financial data extraction, a narrow slice that current models have largely saturated, while reference-based metrics and generic LLM-as-a-judge scoring fall short on the open-ended, long-form answers that real analyst queries demand. We introduce FrontierFinance, a fully open benchmark of 220 expert-crafted queries and 11,543 source-attributed rubrics spanning six crucial use cases across the full investor workflow. FrontierFinance is both broader and harder than existing public finance benchmarks. Evaluating frontier models and agent systems under a common harness restricted to publicly available data, we find that the tool harness, not the model alone, strongly shapes quality and efficiency; that Samaya's in-house system leads at 56.0%, ahead of the strongest frontier model (Claude Fable 5, 49.2%) at roughly 2.2x lower cost; and that the best open-weight model (Kimi K3, 46.4%) nearly matches the best proprietary model at 4.5x lower cost. Screening & Discovery and Sector, Industry & Macro remain the hardest use cases across all systems, where even the best systems reach only 33% and 39%. We make the dataset and grading code publicly available.

Yuhao Zhang, O. Ozan Koyluoglu, Thejas Venkatesh +4

Samaya AI

AI Agent Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks Financial Reasoning Benchmarks

Aug 11, 2026

V-FiLLM: Verified Financial LLM Reasoning Benchmark

While existing benchmarks have made substantial progress in evaluating LLMs across STEM domains, financial reasoning over structured data remains comparatively less explored. We introduce V-FiLLM, a framework that generates financial reasoning benchmarks from executable computation trees grounded in real tables, yielding items whose answers are correct by construction. Trees are evaluated symbolically to obtain ground truth and rendered into natural-language questions, removing any model from the labeling loop, so items can be generated at arbitrary scale without annotation cost and without inheriting a generator's error rate. V-FiLLM exposes four independently controllable axes of difficulty including computation depth, expression breadth, financial concept complexity, and context size. By evaluating on open-source models, we find that accuracy falls up to 51% as reasoning depth increases, and up to 47% points under adversarial numerical perturbations, highlighting remaining challenges in robust financial reasoning over tables. We further show that lightweight LoRA fine-tuning on verified chain-of-thought traces improves accuracy from 81.1% to 85.6% on held-out problems and outperforms the base model by 5% points on FinQA (Chen et al., 2022a), s), suggesting that targeted, low-cost adaptation is a promising direction for compositional reasoning in financial QA.

Alicia Larsen, Victoire Laurent, Aulia Kharis Rakhmasari +2

ETH Zürich, Zürich · Aisot Technologies Ltd

Numerical Reasoning in Language Models Synthetic Data Generation Financial QA Financial Reasoning Benchmarks

Aug 6, 2026

Evaluating Investment Logic in Large Language Models: A Real-World Benchmark Towards Personalzied Financial Agents

Investment competence is inherently personalized: the same market evidence can justify different actions for investors with different goals, horizons, portfolios, and risk boundaries. Yet financial LLMs are evaluated either by static question answering or by terminal profit and loss. The former omits agency; the latter cannot reveal whether a profitable action was grounded, profile-consistent, or merely lucky. We ask whether the community is using the wrong ruler for consequential agents. We introduce InvestLogicBench, a process-native benchmark containing 201,247 documented decisions from 151 real-world investors. Each episode instantiates a \textbf{P

\rightarrow

E

\rightarrow

R

\rightarrow

D

\rightarrow

O} trace: investor Profile, observable market Events, investment Reasoning, executable Decision, and delayed Outcome. The release includes profile construction, point-in-time event binding, structured logic, horizons, outcomes, and post-mortems, and supports comprehension, profile-conditioned generation, and end-to-end replay. Across four leading LLMs, logical plausibility remains near 4/5 while event grounding is only 0.8--2.8/5; return and process quality also disagree. These results expose polished but weakly grounded reasoning that outcome-only evaluation hides. We further argue that P

\rightarrow

E

\rightarrow

R

\rightarrow

D

\rightarrow

O should be a data-system interface, requiring versioned profiles, temporal provenance, inspectable retrieval, decision ledgers, and replayable outcomes. Finance is our stress test for a broader class of personalized, consequential agents.

Yuanhong Jiang, Jingjie Zou, Zhenghong Lin +4

Financial Decision-Making Financial Reasoning in Language Models LLM Agent Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks LLM Decision-Making AI-Assisted Decision Making+2

Jul 30, 2026

FinanceHarness: Autonomous Financial Deep Research Framework

Powered by advances in LLMs and autonomous agents, deep research has become one of the most widely adopted agentic products. However, most deep research systems write general-purpose reports, which are inadequate for financial deep research. Financial research demands specialized knowledge to analyze historical patterns and forecast upcoming events. Automating financial deep research therefore requires both a layered harness to drive the research agent and a verifiable, point-in-time benchmark that prevents leakage of future information. We present FinanceHarness, a harness that runs finance-oriented tools and practitioner-guided workflows, automating financial deep research end to end: environment and data construction, the agent execution loop, and reward modeling. We further propose FinanceGym, comprising thesis-driven research questions and rubrics that combine pre-cutoff and post-cutoff criteria. Professional expert validation yields an 82% pass rate. With the same open-weight backbone, FinanceHarness improves the overall rubric score from 25.3% to 32.4%, demonstrating the effectiveness of our specialized harness design. However, even pairing FinanceHarness with the most cutting edge LLM (e.g. Opus-5), the FinanceGym score is below 45%, showing that it is a challenging benchmark for financial deep research. Leaderboard is available at: https://financegym.github.io/ and FinanceHarness code is available at: https://github.com/Yijia-Xiao/FinanceHarness.

Yijia Xiao, Rujun Han, Yanfei Chen +8

Google Cloud AI Research · University of California, Los Angeles

Deep Research Agents Financial Forecasting Financial Reasoning Benchmarks LLM Agent Harnesses Finance

Jul 27, 2026

GAUGE: Grading Agent-Built Financial Models Without a Golden Answer

Financial models combine public disclosures with analyst assumptions to produce forecasts and valuations. While some components can be checked mechanically, forecasts, discount rates, and target prices often admit multiple reasonable answers. Existing benchmarks nevertheless tend to grade such outputs against a single expert reference. Using independently built analyst models for the same companies, we find that across 108 directed pairs covering 65 companies, the median single-reference score is 0.33, 92.6% score below 0.70, and no same-vintage pair agrees on implied price within 10%. Point-tolerance grading can therefore penalize disagreement already present among professionals. We introduce GAUGE, a benchmark for evaluating agent-built valuation models against observed analyst practice rather than a single point answer. GAUGE uses 1,001 vendor-classified analyst workbooks and a 196-task evaluation set, with a three-layer observed-practice envelope, 56 auditable facets, eight validity gates, and deterministic structural checks. We validate the benchmark with a 55-participant known-groups study, company-grouped cross-fitting, and judge-stability audits. On the failure-aware score

φ_0

, senior analysts average 88.3, juniors 66.0, and finance students 43.2. Across 24 agents and 1,011 scored generations, the best agent scores 53.4, above the student mean but below every senior and most juniors. It passes 93% of mechanical facets and 78% of judgment facets, with a fleet-median gap of 26 points. Current agents are substantially stronger at model construction than valuation judgment. We release the methodology, a gated de-identified data tier, a controlled training split, a versioned 48-task evaluation core, and a withheld refresh pool.

Jiacheng Lu, Sinuo Wang, Wentao Zhao +12

Shanghai Jiao Tong University Shanghai, China · StepFun Shanghai, China · University of Adelaide Adelaide, Australia +5

AI Agent Benchmarks Financial Forecasting AI Agent Evaluation Quantitative Finance Automated Evaluation Finance+1

Jul 14, 2026

FinResearchBench II: A Deep Research Benchmark with Consensus-Derived Gold Rubrics for Distinguishing Financial Report Quality

Deep research agents are increasingly used to produce long-form financial reports, yet large-scale evaluation remains bottlenecked by the need for human experts to define and execute high-quality rubrics. We address this problem by proposing a scalable pipeline for generating high-quality rubrics without human experts in the final loop. We build a financial deep research benchmark from 104 real-world user queries and automatically synthesize 14,450 query-specific candidate rubrics from model-generated reports. To justify removing human experts from rubric execution, we compare rubric judgments from three human experts with those from a three-LLM judge panel on a sampled subset, and show that LLM-based evaluation is sufficiently consistent with human evaluation to replace it for large-scale rubric screening, including 98.67% label-level agreement on jointly unanimous items. We then derive consensus-derived gold rubrics through two filters: a strict consistency filter, which keeps a rubric only if the three LLM judges unanimously agree on every report under the same query, and a distinguishability filter, which keeps a rubric only if it assigns at least one majority-yes and at least one majority-no label across the evaluated systems. This process retains 3,687 consistency-passed rubrics, of which 2,600 remain distinguishable and form the final set of consensus-derived gold rubrics. Using this final rubric set, we obtain clearly differentiated rankings across 10 deep research systems, with item-level pass rates ranging from 58.58% to 22.23%. More broadly, because the pipeline removes human-expert execution from rubric generation and evaluation, it is naturally scalable for benchmark evaluation, automatic system comparison, and future studies of evaluation-driven system improvement.

Beidi Luan, Rui Sun, Sinuo Wang +5

1StepFun · University of Adelaide · 2FinStep +1

LLM-as-a-Judge Rubric-Based Evaluation Rubric-Guided Generation Finance Financial Reasoning Benchmarks

Jul 1, 2026

RusFinChain: A Russian Benchmark for Verifiable Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in Finance with Fuzzy-Aligned Evaluation

Multi-step symbolic reasoning is essential for robust financial analysis, yet most benchmarks neglect intermediate reasoning steps. FINCHAIN introduced verifiable Chain-of-Thought (CoT) evaluation but is limited to English. FINESSE-Bench includes a Russian block but relies on multiple-choice questions without step-level supervision. We present RusFinChain, the first Russian-language symbolic benchmark for verifiable CoT reasoning in finance. It spans 17 domains, 172 topics, and comprises 5,280 parameterized examples from executable Python templates, ensuring contamination-free evaluation. Each example includes a gold-standard reasoning chain with intermediate numeric values for automatic verification. We also introduce enhanced metrics: Fuzzy Numeric Alignment and Soft-Attention Alignment. We evaluate 8 open-weight LLMs on a stratified sample, generating 8,100 responses. Results reveal a substantial reasoning gap: models achieve Hard F1 of ~0.65 for step alignment, but only ~29% of final answers are correct. Our fuzzy and soft metrics show stronger correlation with final-answer correctness (Spearman rho approx 0.48) than the original ChainEval (rho approx 0.38-0.46), demonstrating superior diagnostic power. We release dataset, code, and evaluation framework to foster verifiable financial AI for the Russian-speaking community.

M. K. Arabov

Kazan Federal University · Institute of Computational Mathematics and Information Technologies · Department of Data Analysis +1

Logical Reasoning LLM Evaluation CoT Evaluation Symbolic Reasoning Finance Financial Reasoning Benchmarks

Jun 24, 2026

InvestPhilBench: A Multi-Layer Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Model Procedural Reasoning in Expert Investment Philosophy

Large language models are increasingly deployed as investment research assistants, yet no benchmark tests whether they can accurately reconstruct and apply the specific procedural decision frameworks of expert investors. We introduce InvestPhilBench, a multi-layer benchmark spanning eight cognitive tiers, from principle identification (L1) to novel framework extrapolation (L8). The v0.6 release comprises 118 primary-source-verified principle cards, 25 decision-framework cards with explicit topology metadata, and 243 QA questions (197 dev / 46 held-out test). For reproducible scoring at scale we introduce the Benchmark Automated Scoring Pipeline (BASP), five algorithmic metrics, the Failure Mode Detection Protocol (FMDP) covering six failure modes, and Gate Reconstruction Accuracy (GRA), a per-gate metric for questions with gold reasoning programs. This release is primarily a benchmark-and-methodology contribution: its empirical study -- a four-model sanity wave on the 188-question development split (closed-book) -- is deliberately preliminary and stress-tests the metric design rather than ranking models. The wave shows a sharp provider-tier split (BASP 0.906 vs. 0.438), though these mixed-judge numbers are confounded upper bounds. The central methodological finding survives the caveat: the BASP composite saturates at the frontier (Claude L4 = 0.932) while GRA still exposes a procedural deficit (frontier L4 GRA ~0.77, L7 GRA 0.57-0.62) -- composite scoring rewards fluent prose and hides the procedural gap. On a 100-item expert-annotated gold set, the automated BASP composite tracks the human reference at Pearson r = 0.72 (MAE = 0.10). v0.6 also implements a unified judge and true model-in-the-loop retrieval/oracle conditions; the de-confounded multi-model leaderboard and full three-condition run are v1.0 deliverables.

Mingguang Chen, Bo Qu

University of California, Riverside (UCR). · 2Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT).

LLM Evaluation Finance Financial Decision-Making Financial Reasoning Benchmarks

Jun 23, 2026

MacroLens: A Multi-Task Benchmark for Contextual Financial Reasoning under Macroeconomic Scenarios

Financial decision-making is contextual: forecasting prices, valuing companies, and assessing event exposure weigh price history, accounting fundamentals, macroeconomic regime, and contemporaneous text. A benchmark over these four signals is hard to build because finance violates four assumptions of time-series evaluation: text must be gated by its publication date to prevent look-ahead, quarterly fundamentals are reported with a one- to ninety-day lag, filing text is partly redundant with the numerical statement fields it accompanies, and macroeconomic regimes leak across calendar splits. No public benchmark addresses all four signals jointly. MacroLens covers 4,416 U.S. small- and micro-cap equities over 2021-2026. Seven tasks share one point-in-time panel of prices, 46.8M XBRL accounting facts, 53 macroeconomic series, 295,860 SEC filings, and 215,882 news articles, plus a scenario layer of 1,130 macroeconomic events across 49 types automatically detected and rendered as natural language. Tasks span contextual forecasting, public and private valuation, statement generation from fundamentals and descriptions, scenario-conditioned returns, and real-estate valuation. We evaluate 19 methods across six families spanning naive heuristics through time-series foundation models, fine-tuned LLM-based time-series models, and zero-shot large language models (LLMs), plus a five-step feature-context ablation on two frontier LLMs and a gradient-boosted baseline. MacroLens is released at https://huggingface.co/datasets/DeepAuto-AI/MacroLens.

Patara Trirat, Jin Myung Kwak, Jay Heo +2

KAIST

Financial Decision-Making Financial Forecasting Time Series Forecasting Forecasting Benchmarks LLM-Based Time Series Forecasting Quantitative Finance+3

Jun 22, 2026

IPO Finance Agent: Benchmark of LLM Financial Analysts Beyond Finance Agent v2, with Automated Rubric Generation, on the SpaceX (SPCX) IPO

Finance Agent v2 (by Vals AI) has emerged as the reference benchmark for evaluating both Anthropic Claude and OpenAI ChatGPT frontier language models on financial tasks. However, it narrowly deals with periodic reporting from publicly traded companies (SEC 10-K and 10-Q filings), and its agentic harness relies on naive, unenriched chunk retrieval. Neither the task design nor the retrieval approach addresses the distinct challenges of IPO due diligence. SEC S-1 filings combine historical financial statements, governance structures, pro forma and common-control accounting treatments, capital-formation narratives, and underwriting-sensitive risk disclosures within substantially longer documents than typical periodic filings. That is why we introduce IPO Finance Agent, which extends the Finance Agent v2 framework along two directions: task domain and retrieval architecture. During our experiments, the original Finance Agent v2 harness basically failed to deliver any output related to the SpaceX S-1 filing, due to document length. We therefore had to improve the agentic harness with contextual retrieval, a more realistic and industry-standard approach for long documents. We also built a dataset of 1,000 IPO-diligence questions, and publicly release 70 questions on the SpaceX (SPCX) S-1 filing to support reproducibility, while the remainder are held private to guard against benchmark contamination. In addition, we introduce an evaluator-optimizer pipeline to automatically generate evaluation rubrics for the benchmark: candidate facts are extracted from model answers, consolidated into draft criteria, then automatically audited for omissions, hallucinations, mistiered items, and redundancy, with LLM feedback driving iterative repair, targeted enrichment, and deduplication. Human experts only review final rubrics before deployment. Results show that the best-performing evaluated model, Zhipu GLM-5.2, reaches 79.8% accuracy, and the most cost-efficient model on the resulting Pareto frontier, Xiaomi MiMo-2.5 Pro, reaches slightly lower accuracy (77.2%) at 0.05 USD per query, while exceeding the current Finance Agent v2 leaderboard ceiling, Google Gemini 3.5 Flash at 57.9% for 2.51 USD per query, and undercutting even FABv2's cheapest entry (MiniMax M3: 48.3% at 0.32 USD) on cost-efficiency. Code and data are released on GitHub https://github.com/benstaf/ipoagent

Mostapha Benhenda

Finance LLM-as-a-Judge Financial QA LLM Agent Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks Information Retrieval+2

Jun 2, 2026

Hedge-Bench: Benchmarking Agents on Hard, Realistic Tasks Pertaining to Financial Reasoning

AI agents can increasingly handle the mechanical tasks of financial analysis: retrieving documents, calculating formulas, updating spreadsheets. The harder, more valuable challenge is reasoning through the open-ended questions that define expert Analyst work. Existing benchmarks do not capture this class of problem, and those that attempt to evaluate open-ended reasoning rely on model-judged outputs that introduce noise and circularity. We present Hedge-Bench 1.0: a benchmark of 102 actual, on-the-job tasks grounded in the explicit reasoning traces of professional hedge fund analysts working with relevant information sources. This approach enables deterministic grading against verified expert steps. Frontier models and agents score below 16% on the benchmark. We publish the dataset and evaluation harness at github.com/Trata-Inc/trata-hedge-bench.

Eric Cho, Shawn Huang, Alice Lu +1

1Trata · 2Brigham Young University · 3Osmosis

Quantitative Finance AI Agent Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks Financial Reasoning Benchmarks Finance

Jun 2, 2026

BigFinanceBench: A Workflow-Grounded Benchmark for Financial-Research Agents

Financial-research answers are decision-relevant only when another analyst can audit how they were produced: which source was chosen, which period and accounting definition were used, which assumptions were made, and how the calculation was performed. Existing finance benchmarks largely evaluate isolated subskills or final answers, leaving the auditable derivation itself under-measured. We introduce BigFinanceBench, a 928-item expert-authored benchmark of open-ended financial-research tasks in which each item pairs a ground-truth reference answer with a point-weighted rubric that decomposes the derivation into independently checkable steps. BigFinanceBench is workflow-grounded in that it evaluates the full derivation rather than only the final output. Across 36,241 rubric points, the benchmark supports partial-credit evaluation and localization of failures across the analyst workflow. Evaluating ten current frontier and open-weight agents, we find substantial headroom: the best system reaches only 58.8% rubric score, final-answer accuracy is a useful but lossy proxy for derivation quality, and model capability varies non-uniformly across financial workflows.

Alex Wang, Georg Meinhardt, Jacob Katz +4

1Rogo · 2OpenAI · †Work done while at Rogo.

Benchmark Design Financial QA Rubric-Based Evaluation Finance Agent Benchmarks Financial Reasoning Benchmarks

May 27, 2026

FinBoardBench: Benchmarking Dynamic Wealth Management and Strategic Financial Reasoning of LLMs via Board Game Simulations

Recently, large language models (LLMs) have achieved superior performance in static financial reasoning and simple dynamic trading tasks. However, existing static financial benchmarks are insufficient to assess the dynamic wealth management and financial decision-making capabilities of LLMs in real-world environments. To bridge this gap, we present FinBoardBench, an evaluation suite based on three classic financial board games: Cashflow, Acquire, and Monopoly. FinBoardBench assesses a comprehensive set of financial skills, including personal cash flow management with debt balancing, corporate investment and acquisition forecasting, and competitive trade negotiations with asset auctions. Our experiments with 9 advanced LLMs reveal that while exhibiting basic long-term planning and investment logic, they fail to effectively leverage complex interactions for profit, and their strong static reasoning performance does not transform into successful dynamic decision-making. Notably, they tend to prioritize immediate asset acquisition over maintaining sufficient liquidity, making them vulnerable to financial crises triggered by random events. We hope that FinBoardBench can provide a valuable reference for more intelligent LLM-based decision-making systems in the future.

Xuesi Hu, Peng Wang, Jinpeng Miao +7

School of Computer Science and Engineering, Macau University of Science and Technology, Macau, China · School of Economics, Anhui University, Anhui, China · SKLPlanets, Macau University of Science and Technology, Macau, China +2

LLM Evaluation Financial Reasoning Benchmarks Finance Financial Decision-Making

May 27, 2026

PortBench: A Correlation-Aware, Full-Pipeline Benchmark for LLM-Driven Portfolio Management

Large language models (LLMs) have shown strong performance across diverse financial tasks, yet portfolio management (PM) remains poorly evaluated. Existing benchmarks exhibit two gaps: they are often equity-only and ignore cross-asset correlations; they provide limited insight into where errors arise and how they affect subsequent decisions. We introduce PortBench, a benchmark with market data spanning six 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 portfolio evaluation. Dynamic evaluation uses a class-level correlation score for allocation and CEPS to summarize reference-based stage scores. We further evaluate under three stress windows and three risk profiles, and support real-time evaluation on newly arriving market data. Evaluating ten LLMs reveals a disconnect: high financial QA scores do not ensure consistent portfolio outperformance. LLMs concentrate exposure in correlated assets, and their portfolios achieve higher Sharpe than equal weighting in 54.2% of 120 evaluations across four market periods. Our source code is available at this https URL.

Yuxuan Zhao, Sijia Chen, Ningxin Su

Yantai Research Institute of Harbin Engineering University · The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou)

LLM Evaluation Quantitative Finance LLM Decision-Making Portfolio Optimization Finance Financial Reasoning Benchmarks

May 14, 2026

FINESSE-Bench: A Hierarchical Benchmark Suite for Financial Domain Knowledge and Technical Analysis in Large Language Models

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being applied to financial analysis, reporting, investment decision support, risk management, compliance, and professional training. However, robust evaluation of their domain competence in finance remains incomplete. Widely used open benchmarks such as FinQA, ConvFinQA, and TAT-QA have played an important role in advancing financial question answering and numerical reasoning, but they focus primarily on question answering over financial reports and do not provide an explicit hierarchy of professional difficulty. Broader resources, including FinanceBench, PIXIU, FinBen, and FLaME, expand the coverage of financial tasks, yet the problem of evaluating the transition from foundational knowledge to expert-level financial reasoning remains open. In this work, we present FINESSE-Bench, a suite of eight specialized benchmarks comprising 3,993 questions for hierarchical evaluation of financial competencies in LLMs. FINESSE-Bench combines exam-oriented datasets inspired by professional certifications (CFA-like Levels 1-3, CMT-like Level 2, and CFTe-like Level 1), applied trading task collections, and a Russian-language olympiad benchmark. This design enables evaluation of domain breadth, performance degradation as difficulty increases, the ability to solve computational tasks, and model behavior in specialized financial domains. We also describe a unified evaluation protocol covering multiple-choice questions, numerical answers, and short open-ended responses, together with an automated scoring scheme for freeform answers based on the LLM-as-judge paradigm. FINESSE-Bench is intended both as a complement to existing open financial benchmarks and as a tool for more substantive evaluation of professionally relevant financial competencies in large language models.

Dmitry Stanishevskii, Nini Kamkia, Alexey Khoroshilov +4

Lime FinTech

Financial Language Model Evaluation LLM Evaluation Quantitative Finance Benchmark Design Finance Financial Reasoning Benchmarks

May 14, 2026

Herculean: An Agentic Benchmark for Financial Intelligence

As AI agents advance, the central question is no longer whether they can solve isolated financial tasks, but whether their capabilities generalize across complete professional workflows. Existing benchmarks cannot answer this question because they evaluate either static competencies or agents within a single interaction structure. We introduce Herculean, a benchmark of end-to-end agentic financial intelligence that crosses agent architecture, backbone model, and four structurally distinct workflows: Trading, Hedging, Market Insights, and Auditing. Each workflow is implemented as an MCP skill that preserves its native state, actions, constraints, and outcome criteria, allowing intact agent systems to be evaluated under matched external conditions. Across 30 architecture--backbone configurations, we find that agent capability is not globally ordered. Workflow rankings are weakly aligned, changing the architecture frequently reverses performance under the same backbone, and each architecture concentrates failure in different forms of workflow control. These results establish that agent performance is an interaction between architecture and workflow demand, rather than an intrinsic property of the underlying model. Consequently, success on a single financial workflow provides little evidence of dependable, general financial intelligence.

Xueqing Peng, Zhuohan Xie, Yupeng Cao +60

AI Agent Benchmarks LLM Agent Evaluation Long-Horizon Agent Evaluation Financial Services Financial Decision-Making Finance+1

Apr 21, 2026

IndiaFinBench: An Evaluation Benchmark for Large Language Model Performance on Indian Financial Regulatory Text

We introduce IndiaFinBench, to our knowledge the first publicly available evaluation benchmark for assessing large language model (LLM) performance on Indian financial regulatory text. Existing financial NLP benchmarks draw exclusively from Western financial corpora (SEC filings, US earnings reports, English-language financial news), leaving a significant gap in coverage of non-Western regulatory frameworks. IndiaFinBench addresses this gap with 406 expert-annotated question-answer pairs drawn from 192 documents sourced from the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), spanning four task types: regulatory interpretation (174 items), numerical reasoning (92 items), contradiction detection (62 items), and temporal reasoning (78 items). Annotation quality is validated through a model-based secondary pass (kappa=0.918 on contradiction detection; 90.7% overall agreement on a 150-item subset) and a 180-item human inter-annotator agreement study across three annotation rounds (kappa=0.645 on contradiction detection; 77.2% overall agreement; 44.3% benchmark coverage). We evaluate twelve models under zero-shot conditions, with accuracy ranging from 70.4% (Gemma 4 E4B) to 89.7% (Gemini 2.5 Flash). All models substantially outperform a non-specialist human baseline of 69.0%. Numerical reasoning is the most discriminative task, with a 35.9 percentage-point spread across models. Bootstrap significance testing (10,000 resamples) reveals three statistically distinct performance tiers. The dataset, evaluation code, and all model outputs are available at https://github.com/rajveerpall/IndiaFinBench

Rajveer Singh Pall

Gyan Ganga Institute of Technology and Sciences, Jabalpur, India

LLM Evaluation Financial QA Finance Financial Language Model Evaluation Financial Reasoning Benchmarks

Apr 21, 2026

SAHM: A Benchmark for Arabic Financial and Shari'ah-Compliant Reasoning

English financial NLP has advanced rapidly through benchmarks targeting earnings analysis, market sentiment, tabular reasoning, and financial question answering, yet Arabic financial NLP remains virtually nonexistent, despite 422 million speakers,

4.9 trillion in Gulf sovereign wealth, and a

4-5 trillion Islamic finance industry requiring specialized Shari'ah compliance over instruments like sukuk, murabaha, and takaful. We introduce Sahm, the first Arabic financial benchmark spanning seven tasks: AAOIFI standards QA, fatwa-based QA/MCQ, accounting and business exams, financial sentiment analysis, extractive summarization, and event-cause reasoning, comprising 14,380 expert-verified instances from authentic regulatory, juristic, and corporate sources. Evaluating 20 LLMs, we find Arabic fluency does not imply financial reasoning: models achieving 91% on recognition tasks drop sharply on generation, and event-cause reasoning exposes the widest performance gap (1.89-9.84/10). We release the benchmark and dataset to support trustworthy Arabic financial assistants.

Rania Elbadry, Sarfraz Ahmad, Ahmed Heakl +12

1MBZUAI · 2INSAIT, Sofia University ”St. Kliment Ohridski” · 3The University of Manchester +1

Finance Financial Services Arabic NLP Financial QA Financial Sentiment Analysis Financial Reasoning Benchmarks+2

Apr 18, 2026

Learning to Trade Like an Expert: Cognitive Fine-Tuning for Stable Financial Reasoning in Language Models

Recent deployments of large language models (LLMs) as autonomous trading agents raise questions about whether financial decision-making competence generalizes beyond specific market patterns and how it should be trained and evaluated in noisy markets lacking ground truth. We propose a structured framework for training and evaluating such models. Central to our approach is a curated, multiple-choice question (MCQ) dataset derived from classic textbooks and historical markets, verified by an AI committee, enriched with structured reasoning traces, and augmented to reduce shortcut learning. To evaluate whether performance on isolated MCQs generalizes to real-world trading, we introduce a two-stage protocol combining test-set evaluation with an MCQ-based chronological trading simulation. Extensive evaluations across market regimes provide statistically robust evidence that open models trained with our framework exhibit competitive, risk-aware behavior over time, outperform open-source baselines, and approach frontier-model performance at smaller scale. We release the dataset and evaluation framework to support further research.

Yuchen Pan, Soung Chang Liew

Department of Information Engineering, The Chinese University of Hong Kong

LLM Evaluation Financial Reasoning in Language Models LLM Fine-Tuning Financial Reasoning Benchmarks Finance Algorithmic Trading

Mar 19, 2026

FinTradeBench: A Financial Reasoning Benchmark for LLMs

Financial analysis requires reasoning over heterogeneous signals, including company fundamentals from regulatory filings and trading signals derived from market prices. However, existing financial benchmarks focus almost exclusively on regulatory filings, neglecting market dynamics and cross-signal interactions. We introduce FinTradeBench, a benchmark of 1,400 questions covering NASDAQ-100 stocks over a ten-year window. To holistically evaluate financial reasoning, FinTradeBench includes questions in three reasoning categories: fundamentals-focused, trading-signal-focused, and hybrid questions that require cross-signal reasoning. Our benchmark starts with 150 expert-authored seed questions, which are then scaled to 1400. To ensure reliable evaluation, we create a Core400 subset in which every item is expert-reviewed. In zero-shot (No-RAG) response generation, we observe that all models perform substantially worse on trading-focused questions compared to fundamental-focused questions. To identify failure causes, we evaluate LLMs under controlled settings including retrieval-based baselines, tool-assisted computation, oracle conditions, and time-series-specialized pipelines. LLMs' capabilities to do computation and evidence selection contribute most to reasoning failures. Additionally, retrieval significantly improves trading-signal reasoning but does not improve fundamental reasoning, where identifying relevant signals remains the dominant failure mode. Finally, rather than relying on a small, fine-tuned model for time-series reasoning, it is better to summarize the time-series data and leverage LLMs' reasoning capabilities.

Yogesh Agrawal, Aniruddha Dutta, Md Mahadi Hasan +2

University of Central Florida

Financial Reasoning in Language Models Financial Reasoning Benchmarks Financial QA LLM Evaluation Numerical Reasoning in Language Models Quantitative Finance

Mar 9, 2026

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

Large language models are increasingly used for financial analysis and investment research, yet systematic evaluation of their financial reasoning capabilities remains limited. In this work, we introduce the AI Financial Intelligence Benchmark (AFIB), a multi-dimensional evaluation framework designed to assess financial analysis capabilities across five dimensions: factual accuracy, analytical completeness, data recency, model consistency, and failure patterns. We evaluate five AI systems: GPT, Gemini, Perplexity, Claude, and SuperInvesting, using a dataset of 95+ structured financial analysis questions derived from real-world equity research tasks. The results reveal substantial differences in performance across models. Within this benchmark setting, SuperInvesting achieves the highest aggregate performance, with an average factual accuracy score of 8.96/10 and the highest completeness score of 56.65/70, while also demonstrating the lowest hallucination rate among evaluated systems. Retrieval-oriented systems such as Perplexity perform strongly on data recency tasks due to live information access but exhibit weaker analytical synthesis and consistency. Overall, the results highlight that financial intelligence in large language models is inherently multi-dimensional, and systems that combine structured financial data access with analytical reasoning capabilities provide the most reliable performance for complex investment research workflows.

Akshay Gulati, Kanha Singhania, Tushar Banga +8

The Future University

Financial Reasoning in Language Models Financial Reasoning Benchmarks LLM Evaluation LLM Reliability Finance

Feb 25, 2026

FinReasoning: A Hierarchical Benchmark for Reliable Financial Research Reporting

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.

Yiyun Zhu, Yidong Jiang, Ziwen Xu +4

School of Computer Science and Technology, Tongji University, Shanghai, China · Shanghai Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Shanghai, China

Financial Reasoning in Language Models Financial Reasoning Benchmarks LLM Evaluation LLM Reliability Language Model Auditing

Feb 19, 2026

Conv-FinRe: A Conversational and Longitudinal Benchmark for Utility-Grounded Financial Recommendation

Most recommendation benchmarks evaluate how well a model imitates user behavior. In financial advisory, however, observed actions can be noisy or short-sighted under market volatility and may conflict with a user's long-term goals. Treating what users chose as the sole ground truth, therefore, conflates behavioral imitation with decision quality. We introduce Conv-FinRe, a conversational and longitudinal benchmark for stock recommendation that evaluates LLMs beyond behavior matching. Given an onboarding interview, step-wise market context, and advisory dialogues, models must generate rankings over a fixed investment horizon. Crucially, Conv-FinRe provides multi-view references that distinguish descriptive behavior from normative utility grounded in investor-specific risk preferences, enabling diagnosis of whether an LLM follows rational analysis, mimics user noise, or is driven by market momentum. We build the benchmark from real market data and human decision trajectories, instantiate controlled advisory conversations, and evaluate a suite of state-of-the-art LLMs. Results reveal a persistent tension between rational decision quality and behavioral alignment: models that perform well on utility-based ranking often fail to match user choices, whereas behaviorally aligned models can overfit short-term noise. The dataset is publicly released on Hugging Face, and the codebase is available on GitHub.

Yan Wang, Yi Han, Lingfei Qian +11

The Fin AI, USA · Georgia Institute of Technology, USA · Columbia University, USA +5

Recommender Systems Large Language Model-Based Recommendation Financial Reasoning Benchmarks LLM Evaluation