id stringlengths 4 4 | question stringlengths 92 283 | category stringclasses 10
values | reference_answer stringlengths 7 1.15k | reference_status stringclasses 3
values | grading_status stringclasses 1
value | clartha_answer stringlengths 568 9.22k ⌀ | clartha_verdict stringclasses 3
values | clartha_grading_notes stringlengths 151 489 | claude_answer stringlengths 119 4.05k | claude_verdict stringclasses 4
values | claude_grading_notes stringlengths 65 757 | perplexity_finance_answer stringlengths 286 3.79k | perplexity_finance_verdict stringclasses 4
values | perplexity_finance_grading_notes stringlengths 51 569 | chatgpt_answer stringlengths 14 2.59k | chatgpt_verdict stringclasses 4
values | chatgpt_grading_notes stringlengths 143 506 | google_finance_answer stringlengths 268 5.91k | google_finance_verdict stringclasses 4
values | google_finance_grading_notes stringlengths 100 766 | groww_ai_answer stringlengths 111 3.83k ⌀ | groww_ai_verdict stringclasses 4
values | groww_ai_grading_notes stringlengths 63 399 | groww_ai_response_url stringlengths 64 64 | groww_ai_collected_at stringlengths 10 32 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M001 | What value did Greenply report for net receivables at the end of FY25?(Only refer offical filings/source) | filing_fact | FY25 net trade receivables: standalone ₹29,228.14 lakh; consolidated ₹32,330.55 lakh. The question leaves basis unspecified. | existing_reviewed_key_or_captured_evidence; independent_verification_pending | provisional_content_review; primary_citation_and_reference_audit_not_complete | Greenply Industries Limited reported **consolidated trade receivables of ₹32,330.55 lakh** (**₹323.31 crore**, approximately) as at **31 March 2025**. The filing labels this line item “Trade receivables,” rather than “net receivables.” [Annual Report 2024-25 – Page 137](https://nsearchives.nseindia.com/annual_reports/A... | correct | Latest single-run answer reviewed provisionally; existing content-grade category retained. Consolidated 32330.55 lakh and standalone 29228.14 lakh match reviewed figures; control passes. Additional net-label caveat is unnecessary but does not change requested value. | Not confirmed from the official filing in this session. Greenply's FY25 results presentation (BSE, 28-Apr-2025) discloses receivables, but the PDF blocked automated reading, so the exact figure could not be extracted. | abstained | States that the exact figure could not be extracted or confirmed. | Greenply FY25 net receivables: Greenply’s Q4/FY25 investor presentation contains a receivables disclosure in ₹ crore, but the searchable result did not expose the actual FY25 closing receivables value. I cannot responsibly give the number without opening the annual report or results filing.[[nsearchives.nseindia](https... | abstained | Identifies the relevant FY25 disclosure but explicitly declines to provide the figure. | ₹323.31 crore (₹32,330.55 lakh) net trade receivables; the 12.99% figure appearing in a public benchmark dataset is a ratio, not the balance-sheet line-item value. | correct | Provisional agent review, 5 October 2026; independent citation audit pending. Matches user-verified consolidated 32330.55 lakh; source evidence names consolidated Note 13. | - Greenply Industries Limited
In its official standalone financial statements for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2025, Greenply Industries Limited reported ₹20,180.00 Lakhs (or ₹201.80 Crore) under current financial assets for Trade Receivables (Net Receivables) after factoring in the impairment allowance.link
[cofact... | wrong | ₹20,180 lakh conflicts with user-verified FY25 standalone ₹29,228.14 lakh and consolidated ₹32,330.55 lakh; cited benchmark page is not primary filing support. | Note: I’m not a financial advisor, this is just my reading of the data
🎯 Quick answer
Greenply reported net trade receivables of ₹32,330.55 lakhs (~₹323.3 Cr) as at 31 March 2025 (FY25-end), per the audited consolidated balance sheet.
• Source: Greenply Industries’ official annual report filing (audited balance shee... | correct | Consolidated 32330.55 lakh and standalone 29228.14 lakh match the reviewed FY25 balances. Filing and comparative period identified; direct source URL was not exposed. | https://groww.in/gr/session/97954f72-a1d5-4efb-a8ea-206fcf0ae8d7 | 2026-10-13 |
M002 | What employee-benefit expense did Carysil report in FY25?(Only refer offical filings/source) | filing_fact | FY25 employee-benefits expense: standalone ₹40.17 crore; consolidated ₹79.44 crore. The question leaves basis unspecified. | existing_reviewed_key_or_captured_evidence; independent_verification_pending | provisional_content_review; primary_citation_and_reference_audit_not_complete | ## FY25 employee-benefit expense
Carysil Limited reported **consolidated employee-benefit expenses of ₹79.44 crore** for FY2025, compared with **₹60.26 crore** in FY2024. This was reported in the consolidated Statement of Profit and Loss for the year ended March 31, 2025. [FY2025 Annual Report – Page 265](https://www.... | correct | Latest single-run answer reviewed provisionally; existing content-grade category retained. 79.44 crore consolidated and 40.17 crore standalone match reviewed figures; control passes. | FY25 employee benefits expense: ₹79.44 crore consolidated (FY24: ₹60.26 cr); ₹40.16 crore standalone (FY24: ₹32.08 cr). | correct | It provides the correct consolidated figure of ₹79.44 crore and also correctly gives the standalone figure of ₹40.16 crore. | Carysil FY25 employee-benefit expense
₹79.4 crore.
Carysil’s FY25 results disclosure shows employee expenses of ₹79.4 crore for FY25, versus ₹59.8 crore in FY24. [[announcement.acesphere](https://announcement.acesphere.com/Annoucement/20250520/468d7e7a-a637-44ea-a7f3-d6e370fca2f1.pdf)] | partly_correct | It gives the correct consolidated expense rounded to ₹79.4 crore, but not the exact ₹79.44 crore figure and omits the standalone amount. | ₹88.73 crore on consolidated basis. | wrong | Provisional agent review, 5 October 2026; independent citation audit pending. 88.73 crore conflicts with user-verified FY25 consolidated 79.44 crore and standalone 40.17 crore. | - Carysil Limited
Carysil Limited reported a total Employee Benefit Expense of ₹79.44 Crore for the financial year ended March 31, 2025 (FY25).link
[Carysil Ltd- Clogged on Cash - Nitin MangalSmartkarma](https://www.smartkarma.com/insights/carysil-ltd-clogged-on-cash) | partly_correct | Correct consolidated ₹79.44 crore, but omits standalone ₹40.17 crore for an unspecified-basis question and cites a secondary source. | Note: I’m not a financial advisor, this is just my reading of the data
From Carysil's official filings (Q4 FY26 results, which show FY25 comparatives):
📊 FY25 employee-benefit expense
Basis | FY25 | FY26 (for reference)
Consolidated | ₹79.4 Cr | ₹88.7 Cr
Standalone | ₹40.2 Cr | ₹46.7 Cr
• Consolidated employee expen... | correct | FY25 consolidated 79.4 crore and standalone 40.2 crore agree with 79.44 and 40.17 within stated rounding. Official comparative filing identified. | https://groww.in/gr/session/a6325ea5-9660-43fa-a7e1-d0ddc8ed1618 | 2026-10-13 |
M003 | What was the interest received by Petronet LNG in its FY24 cash-flow statement on consolidated basis?(Only refer offical filings/source) | filing_fact | ₹502.15 crore | existing_reviewed_key_or_captured_evidence; independent_verification_pending | provisional_content_review; primary_citation_and_reference_audit_not_complete | Petronet LNG Limited’s **FY2024 consolidated cash-flow statement** reported **interest received of ₹502.15 crore** for the year ended **31 March 2024**. This increased from **₹244.35 crore** in FY2023. [3](https://nsearchives.nseindia.com/annual_reports/AR_24900_PETRONET_2023_2024_1008202416349.pdf)
The amount appears... | correct | Latest single-run answer reviewed provisionally; existing content-grade category retained. Matches FY24 consolidated interest received of 502.15 crore. | Interest received (investing activities), consolidated FY24: ₹502.15 crore (FY25: ₹559.38 cr). Standalone FY24: ₹502.02 cr. | correct | Correctly reports consolidated FY24 interest received of ₹502.15 crore. | Petronet LNG FY24 consolidated interest received
₹559.38 crore in the consolidated cash-flow statement, versus ₹502.15 crore in FY23.
Petronet’s official consolidated financial statements list “Interest received” of 559.38 for the later year and 502.15 for the prior year. [[petronetlng](https://www.petronetlng.in/docum... | wrong | Incorrectly identifies ₹559.38 crore as FY24; that figure relates to the later fiscal year, while FY24 was ₹502.15 crore. | ₹502.15 crore. | correct | Provisional agent review, 5 October 2026; independent citation audit pending. Matches consolidated cash-flow interest received of 502.15 crore. | - Petronet LNG Limited
In its consolidated cash flow statement for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2024 (FY24), Petronet LNG Limited recorded ₹559.02 Crore under interest received within its cash generated from investing activities.link
[Petronet LNG Limited - NSENSE India](https://nsearchives.nseindia.com/annual_repor... | wrong | Incorrectly reports ₹559.02 crore for FY24; the official consolidated cash-flow statement reports ₹502.15 crore. | Note: I’m not a financial advisor, this is just my reading of the data Please type continue to analyse further. | abstained | Only requests typing continue; no requested interest-received figure. | https://groww.in/gr/session/eea7ccab-af53-48ae-9006-7057e61aa42d | 2026-10-13 |
M004 | How much did NTPC Green Energy report as borrowing costs capitalised during FY25 on consolidated basis?(Only refer offical filings/source) | filing_fact | FY25 borrowing costs capitalised: ₹562.03 crore consolidated; ₹4.78 crore standalone. | existing_reviewed_key_or_captured_evidence; independent_verification_pending | provisional_content_review; primary_citation_and_reference_audit_not_complete | NTPC Green Energy Limited reported **₹562.03 crore** as borrowing costs capitalised during **FY2025** on a **consolidated basis**. This compares with **₹152.87 crore** in FY2024. [Annual Report 2024-25 – Page 257](https://www.bseindia.com/xml-data/corpfiling/AttachHis/24491623-2828-49b8-85d4-b7a3a5ed19e4.pdf)
The amou... | correct | Latest single-run answer reviewed provisionally; existing content-grade category retained. 562.03 crore consolidated matches reviewed FY25 key; control passes. | Not confirmed. The consolidated FY25 figure for borrowing costs capitalised (finance-cost note / CWIP note of the NGEL FY25 Annual Report) was not reached in this session. | abstained | Explicitly states that the consolidated FY25 figure was not confirmed. | NTPC Green FY25 borrowing costs capitalised: Not verified. NTPC’s FY24-25 annual-report page hosts the NGEL annual report, but the specific “borrowing costs capitalised” figure was not retrievable from the search result.[[ntpc.co](https://ntpc.co.in/investors/annual-reports/2024-25)]
Important limitation
The remaining ... | abstained | Explicitly states that the figure was not verified. | ₹562.03 crore. | correct | Provisional agent review, 5 October 2026; independent citation audit pending. Matches verified consolidated borrowing costs capitalised of 562.03 crore. | - NTPC Green Energy Limited
On a consolidated basis, NTPC Green Energy Limited reported ₹562.03 Crore as borrowing costs capitalised during the financial year ended March 31, 2025 (FY25).
NTPC Green Energy Limited
In its official disclosures, NTPC Green Energy Limited reported ₹562.03 Crore as borrowing costs capitali... | correct | Numerical answer ₹562.03 crore matches user-adjudicated consolidated figure, but the captured citation points to the benchmark dataset rather than the official filing. | Note: I’m not a financial advisor, this is just my reading of the data
🎯 Quick answer
NTPC Green Energy capitalised ₹562.03 crore of borrowing costs in FY25 (consolidated), as per its Annual Report 2024-25. This comes from Note 30 (Finance costs) — total finance costs of ₹1,322.71 Cr, of which ₹562.03 Cr was transferr... | correct | FY25 consolidated capitalised borrowing costs 562.03 crore match the reviewed key; finance-cost note and components identified. Ancillary FY24 claim not independently audited. | https://groww.in/gr/session/1dbc0d10-edb5-489d-9975-08f16ffcf75d | 2026-10-13 |
M005 | What was the FY24 R&D spend for Coromandel International on consolidated basis?(Only refer offical filings/source) | filing_fact | ₹32 crore (approximately ₹31.98 crore, comprising ₹25.6 crore revenue expenditure and ₹6.38 crore capital expenditure) in FY24. | existing_reviewed_key_or_captured_evidence; independent_verification_pending | provisional_content_review; primary_citation_and_reference_audit_not_complete | ## FY24 R&D spend
Coromandel International Limited reported **FY2024 consolidated R&D expenditure of ₹32 crores**.
| Component | FY2024 spend |
|---|---:|
| Revenue expenditure | **₹25.6 crores** |
| Capital expenditure | **₹6.38 crores** |
| Reported total R&D expenditure | **₹32 crores** |
The report also states t... | correct | Latest single-run answer reviewed provisionally; existing content-grade category retained. R&D total and underlying components match recorded reference within rounding. Answer acknowledges disclosure does not explicitly label consolidated scope; source-scope audit remains pending. | Not confirmed from the official report. A secondary database shows consolidated R&D expense of ~₹11 crore for FY24, which conflicts with the scale of Coromandel's disclosed R&D programme, so it is not relied upon. | abstained | Does not provide a supported answer and explicitly declines to confirm the official figure. | Coromandel International FY24 consolidated R&D spend
₹32 crore total R&D expenditure: ₹26 crore revenue expenditure plus ₹6 crore capital expenditure; equal to 0.14% of net sales.
Coromandel’s FY24 annual report disclosure. [[stockinsights-in-filings.s3.ap-south-1.amazonaws](https://stockinsights-in-filings.s3.ap-south... | correct | Reports the correct total of ₹32 crore, with the appropriate revenue and capital expenditure components. | ₹32 crore: ₹25.6 crore revenue R&D + ₹6.4 crore capital R&D; about 0.14% of net sales. | correct | Provisional agent review, 5 October 2026; independent citation audit pending. 32 crore and 25.6+6.4 components match within rounding; independent statement-scope audit remains pending for all systems. | Coromandel International Limited
For the financial year ended March 31, 2024 (FY24), Coromandel International Limited reported a total consolidated Research & Development (R&D) spend of ₹32 Crore.link
[cofacto/IndFin-Bench · Datasets at Hugging FaceHugging Face](https://huggingface.co/datasets/cofacto/IndFin-Bench)
[Co... | partly_correct | The ₹32 crore figure is correct, but the cited sources are not clearly official filings as required. | Note: I’m not a financial advisor, this is just my reading of the data
Please type continue to analyse further. | abstained | Only requests typing continue; no FY24 consolidated R&D amount. | https://groww.in/gr/session/d5bf9ce1-6a61-4450-b08a-44ba1c502838 | 2026-10-13 |
M006 | For Shyam Metalics and Energy Limited, compute the consolidated FY25 Operating EBITDA per tonne based on sales volume. (Only refer offical filings/source) | calculation | Approximately ₹4,791 per tonne (about ₹4,800/tonne), based on FY25 consolidated Operating EBITDA of ₹1,865.53 crore and sales volume of roughly 38.9 lakh tonnes. | existing_reviewed_key_or_captured_evidence; independent_verification_pending | provisional_content_review; primary_citation_and_reference_audit_not_complete | For **Shyam Metalics and Energy Limited**, the consolidated FY25 sales volume was **36.62 lakh tonnes**. However, the retrieved official sources do not provide FY25 consolidated Operating EBITDA, so the exact FY25 Operating EBITDA per tonne cannot be computed without inventing an input. [6](https://nsearchives.nseindia... | abstained | Latest run does not produce the requested FY25 EBITDA-per-tonne result. It gives a formula and partial sales-volume evidence; required EBITDA input is unavailable. Previously correct answer is preserved in history. | FY25 consolidated EBITDA ₹2,097 crore and revenue ₹15,138 crore are disclosed. Operating EBITDA and total sales volume for the full year were not retrieved, so operating EBITDA per tonne could not be computed. Formula: Operating EBITDA ÷ total sales volume (tonnes). | abstained | States that the required operating EBITDA and sales volume were not retrieved and does not compute the metric. | Shyam Metalics FY25 operating EBITDA/tonne
Approximately ₹4,800 per tonne. The company reported FY25 operating EBITDA of ₹1,866 crore; CRISIL’s filing-based rating note reports consolidated FY25 EBITDA of ₹1,868 crore and EBITDA/tonne of ₹4,797. Using the company’s ₹1,866 crore figure, the result is about ₹4,791/tonne,... | partly_correct | Provisional adjudication, 5 October 2026. The operating EBITDA and per-tonne reasoning earn credit, but the 38.9-lakh-tonne denominator is inferred from another reported metric rather than established as the requested consolidated sales volume. This does not reconcile with the captured 3.94-million-tonne input; full co... | ₹4,748.09/tonne. | partly_correct | Provisional adjudication, 5 October 2026. Correct EBITDA/sales-volume method earns limited credit. The bare 4,748.09 figure supplies no numeric inputs or page citation; its accuracy is unverified. Captured rounded inputs 1,865.5 crore and 3.94 million tonnes yield 4,734.77 per tonne. Do not award full correctness or in... | Shyam Metalics and Energy Limited
Based on official consolidated financials for the financial year ended March 31, 2025 (FY25), the computation is as follows:
Consolidated Operating EBITDA (FY25): ₹1,865.53 Crorelink
[Shyam Metalics FY26: Strong volumes, deeper downstream pushMultibagg AI](https://www.multibagg.ai/mark... | partly_correct | Provides a numerically plausible estimate of ₹4,753 per tonne, but uses an unsupported derived sales volume and non-official sources rather than the filing-based volume of roughly 38.9 lakh tonnes. | Note: I’m not a financial advisor, this is just my reading of the data
FY25 (consolidated) | Official filing value
Operating EBITDA | ₹1,865.5 Cr
Sales volume | 39.39 lakh tonnes (39.39 L t)
Operating EBITDA/tonne | ₹4,736 per tonne
🎯 Quick answer
Shyam Metalics' consolidated FY25 Operating EBITDA per tonne works out ... | partly_correct | Correct EBITDA/volume method and approximately 1865.5 crore numerator. 39.39 lakh tonnes yields approximately 4736/tonne, but exact official consolidated sales-volume denominator is unresolved. Existing adjudications flag conflicting 38.9-lakh and 3.94-million inputs; do not declare wrong merely by matching the old key... | https://groww.in/gr/session/56513bd4-ef51-428b-91ef-04b272654028 | 2026-10-13 |
M007 | In FY24, what proportion of Container Corporation of India Ltd’s total ‘Other Income’ was driven by profit on sale of assets on consolidated basis, and what does this indicate about the quality of earnings? (Only refer offical filings/source) | calculation | In FY24, profit on sale of assets was ₹1.53 crore versus consolidated Other Income of ₹370.34 crore, representing approximately 0.41%. This indicates that consolidated earnings were not materially dependent on non-recurring asset-sale gains, supporting relatively good earnings quality on this measure. | existing_reviewed_key_or_captured_evidence; independent_verification_pending | provisional_content_review; primary_citation_and_reference_audit_not_complete | ## FY24 consolidated assessment
For **Container Corporation of India Limited**, profit on the sale of capital assets contributed:
\[
\frac{₹1.53\text{ crore}}{₹370.34\text{ crore}} \times 100
= \mathbf{0.41\%}
\]
Thus, only **0.41% of consolidated Other Income** in FY24 came from asset-sale profits. The filing repor... | correct | Latest single-run answer reviewed provisionally; existing content-grade category retained. Recovered 1.53 crore asset-sale profit and 370.34 crore consolidated Other Income; 0.4131% rounds to 0.41%. Earnings-quality conclusion appropriately limited to this component. | FY24 Other Income was ₹378.27 crore (standalone ten-year summary; consolidated is similar at ~₹370 cr). The 'profit on sale of assets' sub-line was not retrieved, so the proportion is not computed. Interpretation guide: if that share is small, other income is mainly interest/recurring and earnings quality is good; if i... | abstained | Explicitly states that the asset-sale sub-line was not retrieved and does not compute the requested proportion. | CONCOR FY24 profit on asset sales as share of other income
About 0.40%: profit on sale of property, plant and equipment was ₹1.53 crore against consolidated other income of ₹378.27 crore 1.53 / 378.27 = 0.40\%. This indicates that FY24 other income was not materially dependent on one-off asset sales; the earnings-quali... | wrong | Uses ₹378.27 crore, which is the standalone figure rather than consolidated Other Income, so the reported 0.40% proportion is based on the wrong denominator. | About 0.41%: ₹1.53 crore / ₹370.34 crore. | correct | Provisional agent review, 5 October 2026; independent citation audit pending. 1.53/370.34*100=0.4131%, with limited earnings-quality interpretation matching reviewed sources. | Container Corporation of India Limited
Consolidated Total Other Income (FY24): ₹370.34 Crore
Profit on Sale of Assets (FY24): ₹1.53 Crore
Proportion Contribution:
₹1.53 Crore₹370.34 Crore×100≈0.41% [1.4.1]the fraction with numerator ₹1.53 Crore and denominator ₹370.34 Crore end-fraction cross 100 is approximately equal... | correct | Correctly identifies consolidated Other Income of ₹370.34 crore, asset-sale profit of ₹1.53 crore, and the resulting approximately 0.41% contribution, with the correct interpretation. | Note: I’m not a financial advisor, this is just my reading of the data
Please type continue to analyse further. | abstained | Only requests typing continue; no Other Income proportion or earnings-quality conclusion. | https://groww.in/gr/session/e09fd98c-f475-4d40-aa22-92857fce15ec | 2026-10-13 |
M008 | Among Gokaldas, Raymond lifestyle, and KPR Mills, which reported the lowest FY25 net-debt-to-equity ratio at consolidated level, and what was the value?(Only refer offical filings/source) | peer_comparison | KPR Mills reported the lowest FY25 consolidated net-debt-to-equity ratio, at approximately 2.95% (0.03x). | existing_reviewed_key_or_captured_evidence; independent_verification_pending | provisional_content_review; primary_citation_and_reference_audit_not_complete | ## Answer
**K.P.R. Mill Ltd.** reported the lowest FY25 consolidated net-debt-to-equity ratio at **2.95%** as of **31 March 2025**. Its filing defines net debt as borrowings less cash and bank balances. [5](https://www.bseindia.com/xml-data/corpfiling/AttachHis/78f3d7c4-2ead-41bf-a059-97defd4374ad.pdf)
| Company | FY... | correct | Latest answer supplies KPR 2.95%, Raymond gearing 9%, and a labelled Gokaldas calculation of 22.93% from consolidated inputs. KPR is lowest. Definitions and reported-versus-calculated differences are explicit. Provisional content grade; primary citations not independently re-audited. | Not answered with verified figures. The FY25 consolidated net debt and equity for Gokaldas Exports, Raymond Lifestyle and KPR Mill were not retrieved from filings. | abstained | Explicitly states that the consolidated FY25 figures were not retrieved and does not provide an answer. | Lowest FY25 net-debt-to-equity: Raymond Lifestyle
Raymond Lifestyle had the lowest consolidated FY25 net-debt-to-equity position: the company described itself as net debt free in its Q4/FY25 investor presentation, implying a net-debt-to-equity ratio of zero or below.[[raymondlifestyle](https://raymondlifestyle.com/uplo... | wrong | Identifies Raymond Lifestyle as lowest based on an inferred net-debt-free position, but the lowest reported consolidated FY25 ratio was KPR Mills at approximately 2.95% (0.03x). | KPR Mill, about 0.03x (reported as 2.95%); Gokaldas ~0.08x; Raymond Lifestyle ~0.09x. | partly_correct | Provisional agent review, 5 October 2026; independent citation audit pending. KPR winner and values match recorded leads, but Gokaldas and Raymond consolidated scopes are not demonstrated by the supplied source records. | Net-Debt-to-Equity Ratio
Among the three specified textile companies, K.P.R. Mill Limited reported the lowest consolidated net-debt-to-equity ratio at the end of FY25.
K.P.R. Mill Limited: 0.03 (formally stated as 2.95% or cyclically approaching an absolute net-cash balance of -0.02x to 0.03x depending on transient sho... | correct | Correctly identifies KPR Mills and gives the approximately 0.03x consolidated FY25 net-debt-to-equity ratio, or 2.95%. | Note: I’m not a financial advisor, this is just my reading of the data
🎯 Lowest net debt: KPR Mill
KPR Mill reported the lowest FY25 consolidated net-debt-to-equity — around -0.02x (net cash). From its own FY25/Q1 presentation (consolidated): total borrowings ₹466 Cr, cash + fixed deposits ₹580.8 Cr, so net debt was... | partly_correct | Identifies KPR as lowest and supplies a transparent calculation, but -0.02x net cash differs from the reviewed reported 0.03x. Excludes leases and includes fixed deposits without reconciling the reported ratio definition; full comparable scope not established. | https://groww.in/gr/session/da8ec795-3537-4c73-9b66-d7acc84c402e | 2026-10-13T01:14:51.347791+05:30 |
M009 | Across Tata Steel, JSW Steel, and SAIL, what were the FY25 debt-equity ratios and EBITDA per tonne on consolidated basis?(Only refer offical filings/source) | peer_comparison | Partially resolved: JSW FY25 consolidated EBITDA/tonne 8672; JSW total-debt/equity 1.17 versus net-debt/equity 0.94 (label definitions separately). SAIL consolidated net-debt/equity 0.64; 0.66 belongs to standalone ratio disclosure. Complete Tata total-debt/equity and consolidated SAIL EBITDA/tonne reference still need... | partially_adjudicated; old_complete_key_not_validated | provisional_content_review; primary_citation_and_reference_audit_not_complete | null | abstained | Counted as abstained/no answer in the summary. Empty answer: NotPrimaryError / ShutdownInProgress (code 91) during parsing. Infrastructure failure, not a fabricated financial answer; included in the 50-question denominator. | FY25 consolidated. Tata Steel: reported EBITDA/t ₹8,335 (adjusted ₹8,441); net debt ₹82,579 cr. Net debt/equity ~0.90x (broker-computed; gross debt/equity ~1.04x). JSW Steel: net debt/equity 0.94x; adjusted EBITDA/t ₹8,695. SAIL (standalone; SAIL reports standalone): debt/equity 0.66 (Ind AS); EBITDA/t ₹6,574. Highest ... | partly_correct | It gives the correct leverage figures and a correct Tata EBITDA-per-tonne value, but uses a different adjusted JSW figure, describes SAIL as standalone, and does not consistently provide the requested consolidated filing-based metrics. | Tata Steel, JSW Steel, SAIL: FY25 leverage and EBITDA/tonne
Company
FY25 consolidated metric
Verified figure
Tata Steel
EBITDA
₹25,802 crore consolidated FY25 EBITDA. [[tatasteel](https://www.tatasteel.com/media/23824/irpr-combined-sign.pdf)][[tatasteel](https://www.tatasteel.com/newsroom/press-releases/india/2025/tata... | abstained | It explicitly states that complete filing-verified ratios and EBITDA-per-tonne figures were not established, and gives an unsupported/non-official SAIL EBITDA-per-tonne figure. | Tata Steel: net debt/equity 0.90x, ₹8,335/t; JSW Steel: 0.94x, ₹8,672/t; SAIL: 0.66x, ₹6,574/t. | wrong | 5 October adjudication from captured official SAIL annual report: 0.66 is the standalone ratio, whereas the requested consolidated capital-management note reports net debt/equity 0.64 (37458.46/58905.61). ChatGPT also substitutes net debt for generic debt-equity without reconciling total debt. JSW 8672 per tonne is sup... | Steel Sector Consolidated Metrics (FY25)
The official consolidated debt-equity ratios and blended EBITDA per tonne for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2025, are summarized below:
Metric
Tata Steel (NASDAQ:TATASTEEL)link
[Integrated Report and Annual Accounts 2024-25 118th yearTata Steel](https://www.tatasteel.com/inves... | partly_correct | The numerical table largely matches the ground truth, but the SAIL EBITDA-per-tonne figure is cited to LinkedIn rather than an official filing, contrary to the source requirement. | Note: I’m not a financial advisor, this is just my reading of the data
Please type continue to analyse further. | abstained | Only requests typing continue; no three-company ratios or EBITDA/tonne. | https://groww.in/gr/session/5a85fdff-9bd9-4593-97ed-0dc81535c8ab | 2026-10-13T01:18:12.314496+05:30 |
M010 | For HDFC Bank Ltd and ICICI Bank Ltd, compute the change in GNPA (in bps) from FY23 to FY24 on standalone basis. (Only refer offical filings/source) | peer_comparison | HDFC Bank Ltd.: GNPA increased from 1.12% in FY23 to 1.24% in FY24, a change of +12 bps. ICICI Bank Ltd.: GNPA decreased from 2.81% in FY23 to 2.16% in FY24, a change of -65 bps, based on standalone official filings. | existing_reviewed_key_or_captured_evidence; independent_verification_pending | provisional_content_review; primary_citation_and_reference_audit_not_complete | ## GNPA change: FY23 to FY24
Using standalone figures reported at **March 31**:
| Bank | FY23 GNPA | FY24 GNPA | Change | Calculation |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| HDFC Bank Limited (HDFCBANK) | 1.12% | 1.24% | **+12 bps** | (1.24% − 1.12%) × 100 |
| ICICI Bank Limited (ICICIBANK) | 2.87% | 2.26% | **−61 bps** | (2.2... | correct | Latest single-run answer reviewed provisionally; existing content-grade category retained. HDFC +12 bps and ICICI -61 bps match prior sourced calculator adjudication (2.87 to 2.26). Stale reference -65 based on 2.81 to 2.16 remains conflicting and should not be treated as authoritative without scope review. | Standalone GNPA. HDFC Bank: 1.12% (Mar-23) to 1.24% (Mar-24), +12 bps (deterioration; FY24 includes the effect of the HDFC Ltd merger). ICICI Bank: 2.81% to 2.16%, −65 bps (improvement). | correct | Correctly reports HDFC Bank's +12 bps increase and ICICI Bank's -65 bps decrease, matching the official standalone figures. | HDFC Bank GNPA change, FY23 to FY24, standalone
+12 basis points: GNPA rose from 1.12% at FY23-end to 1.24% at FY24-end.
HDFC Bank FY24 integrated annual report. [[hdfcbank](https://www.hdfcbank.com/content/bbp/repositories/723fb80a-2dde-42a3-9793-7ae1be57c87f/?path=/Footer/About+Us/Investor+Relation/annual+reports/pdf... | partly_correct | Correctly reports HDFC Bank's +12 bps change, but abstains on ICICI Bank and includes an unsupported incorrect table suggesting no change. | HDFC Bank: +12 bps (1.12%→1.24%); ICICI Bank: -61 bps (2.87%→2.26%). | correct | Provisional agent review, 5 October 2026; independent citation audit pending. Matches prior source adjudication: HDFC +12 bps, ICICI -61 bps. Conflicting older key requires common-source audit for every system. | Standalone GNPA Change (FY23 to FY24)
To calculate the change in Gross Non-Performing Assets (GNPA) in basis points (1%=100 bps1% equals 100 bps
1%=100 bps
), we assess the standalone headline metrics reported at year-end:
1. HDFC Bank Ltd (NSE:HDFCBANK)link
[HDFC Bank Share Price Today, Market Cap & Stock AnalysisFino... | correct | Reports the correct standalone figures and changes: HDFC Bank +12 bps and ICICI Bank -65 bps, although the cited sources are not all official filings. | Note: I’m not a financial advisor, this is just my reading of the data
📊 Got both banks' standalone GNPA ratios straight from their annual reports — computing the change now.
Bank GNPA FY23 (Mar-23) GNPA FY24 (Mar-24) Change
HDFC Bank 1.12% 1.24% +12 bps
ICICI Bank 2.87% 2.26% -61 bps
HDFC Bank's standalone GNPA rat... | correct | HDFC +12 bps and ICICI -61 bps match the prior common-source adjudication used for Clartha and ChatGPT (ICICI 2.87 to 2.26). The reference text retains a conflicting -65-bps definition; neither alternative is rejected solely by key mismatch. | https://groww.in/gr/session/d495a362-6115-4e2c-a2cd-338ab3d6e384 | 2026-10-13T01:51:50.240073+05:30 |
M011 | Using Bharat Forge’s FY24 consolidated annual report, what is the total carrying value of intangible assets including goodwill? Show the goodwill and other-intangibles components, their sum, and the page supporting each component. | calculation | FY24 consolidated carrying value of intangible assets including goodwill is ₹3,667.74 million, comprising goodwill of ₹2,959.85 million and other intangible assets of ₹707.89 million (₹2,959.85 million + ₹707.89 million). Both components are supported on annual report page 200. Intangible assets under development of ₹1... | existing_reviewed_key_or_captured_evidence; independent_verification_pending | provisional_content_review; primary_citation_and_reference_audit_not_complete | For **Bharat Forge Limited**, the FY2024 **consolidated carrying value** of intangible assets, including goodwill, was **₹3,667.74 million** as at **March 31, 2024**.
| Component | Carrying value at March 31, 2024 | Supporting page |
|---|---:|---|
| Other intangible assets | ₹707.89 million | [Bharat Forge Ltd. FY202... | correct | Latest single-run answer reviewed provisionally; existing content-grade category retained. Goodwill 2959.85 plus other intangibles 707.89 = 3667.74 million; development assets separated and supporting page supplied. | Consolidated balance sheet at 31-Mar-2024 (₹ million): Goodwill 2,959.85 plus Other intangible assets 707.89 = 3,667.74. Including intangible assets under development (143.82) gives 3,811.56. Both lines are on the Consolidated Balance Sheet (AR pp. 314-315, Note 5). | partly_correct | The component values and total are correct, and it notes the separately reported development balance, but the cited pages (314–315) do not match the supporting page 200 requested for these figures. | Bharat Forge FY24 intangibles including goodwill
From Bharat Forge’s FY24 consolidated financial statements:
Goodwill carrying amount at March 31, 2024: ₹272.71 million, net of impairment.[[bharatforge](https://www.bharatforge.com/AR2024/pdf/consolidated-financial-statements.pdf)]
The total carrying value of other inta... | abstained | Explicitly states that the combined goodwill-plus-intangibles total cannot be stated with page-level verification, so it does not answer the question. | ₹3,667.74 million total. Goodwill component is ₹2,433.34m from JS Auto Cast acquisition; other intangible-assets component is ₹1,234.40m; sum ₹3,667.74m. | wrong | Provisional agent review, 5 October 2026; independent citation audit pending. Combined total matches, but required components are incorrect: total goodwill is 2959.85, other intangibles 707.89 million; acquisition goodwill is not total goodwill. | Bharat Forge Ltd Intangible Assets & Goodwill (FY24)
Based on Bharat Forge Limited's FY24 Consolidated Statement of Financial Position (Balance Sheet) and the explanatory notes to the accounts:
Goodwill Component: ₹1,674.75 Million (Mainly driven by strategic allocations such as the JS Auto Cast acquisition note).
Othe... | wrong | Reports unsupported and incorrect component values of ₹1,674.75 million and ₹965.12 million, totaling ₹2,639.87 million, and does not provide valid page support. | Note: I’m not a financial advisor, this is just my reading of the data
🚫 Couldn't pull Bharat Forge's FY24 annual report
The filing lookup is failing for the FY24 annual report, and the filings I could read are from FY26 (balance sheets as at March 31, 2026 and 2025) — they don't carry the March 31, 2024 numbers you... | abstained | Explicitly withholds FY24 goodwill/intangible values and pages because filing retrieval failed. No requested total supplied. | https://groww.in/gr/session/1357e6d3-61e9-4a9b-a118-0a0d1981a2f3 | 2026-10-13T02:00:45.270135+05:30 |
M012 | What were Tata Motors’ consolidated current unsecured borrowings at FY24 year end? Reconcile the total with the relevant subcategories and explain why a standalone or single sub-note amount is not the consolidated total. | calculation | Tata Motors’ FY24 consolidated current unsecured borrowings were ₹12,410.50 crore, reconciled as ₹9,150.20 crore of unsecured loans and commercial paper from banks plus ₹3,260.30 crore of unsecured short-term inter-corporate loans/deposits. A standalone amount excludes subsidiaries and entities such as JLR and Tata Mot... | existing_reviewed_key_or_captured_evidence; independent_verification_pending | provisional_content_review; primary_citation_and_reference_audit_not_complete | ## Answer
The **FY24 year-end consolidated current unsecured borrowings for Tata Motors Limited** are **not available in the retrieved evidence**. The supplied documents contain FY25 and FY26 figures, but no FY24 consolidated borrowing note showing the unsecured split.
The key reconciliation issue is scope:
- **Cons... | abstained | Latest single-run answer reviewed provisionally; existing content-grade category retained. Required FY24 consolidated unsecured borrowing subtotal and reconciliation missing; later-period figures explicitly not substituted. | Not answered with verified figures. The FY24 consolidated borrowings note (Tata Motors AR 2023-24, Note 'Short-term borrowings / current maturities', unsecured split) was not retrieved. Key principle: the consolidated total includes JLR and Tata Motors Finance, so standalone or single sub-notes (e.g. only commercial pa... | abstained | It explicitly states that the FY24 consolidated unsecured borrowing figure was not retrieved and supplies no amount. | Tata Motors consolidated current borrowings, FY24
At March 31, 2024, Tata Motors’ consolidated current borrowings reconcile as follows:
Component
FY24 (₹ crore)
Short-term debt, excluding current portion of long-term debt
5,734
Current portion of long-term debt
30,617
Total current borrowings
36,351
Long-term debt, net... | partly_correct | It correctly reconciles FY24 consolidated total current borrowings of ₹36,351 crore, but does not provide the requested unsecured subtotal and acknowledges that limitation. | ₹24,903 crore: ₹1,969 crore commercial paper + ₹22,934 crore unsecured current maturities of long-term borrowings. | partly_correct | Provisional adjudication, 5 October 2026. 1,969 + 22,934 = 24,903 is arithmetically correct. The answer does not establish a complete FY24 consolidated current-unsecured subtotal against the actual note, nor explain all exclusions requested. Credit the calculation only; the total remains unverified. | Tata Motors Consolidated Current Unsecured Borrowings (FY24)
At the close of FY24 (March 31, 2024), Tata Motors Limited (NSE:TATAMOTORS) reported total Consolidated Current Unsecured Borrowings of ₹12,410.50 Crore.
1. Reconciliation of Subcategories:
Unsecured Loans & Commercial Papers from Banks: ₹9,150.20 Crore
Unsec... | partly_correct | Provisional adjudication, 5 October 2026. 9,150.20 + 3,260.30 = 12,410.50 is arithmetically correct and the consolidated/standalone distinction is relevant. No actual borrowing-note citation establishes these inputs or completeness. The recorded key repeats this answer and is not independent verification. Credit reason... | Note: I’m not a financial advisor, this is just my reading of the data
⚠️ The FY24 filing isn't coming up — let me explain what I can and can't confirm.
🚫 Couldn't pull the FY24 consolidated borrowings note
I tried several times to retrieve Tata Motors' FY24 (year ended 31 March 2024) consolidated annual report, bu... | abstained | Explicitly withholds the FY24 consolidated unsecured-borrowing subtotal. Generic reconciliation explanation does not complete the core numerical task; same core-answer policy as Clartha M012. | https://groww.in/gr/session/40ad9923-9d12-4429-b94b-6e4b8e4dba91 | 2026-10-13T02:02:54.225241+05:30 |
M013 | Calculate the FY24 change in HCL Technologies’ foreign-currency translation reserve on a consolidated basis from the statement of changes in equity. Show opening balance, movements, closing balance, and units. | calculation | FY24 foreign-currency translation reserve increased by ₹414 crore on a consolidated basis: opening balance ₹4,731 crore as of 1 April 2023, movement ₹414 crore, and closing balance ₹5,145 crore as of 31 March 2024. | existing_reviewed_key_or_captured_evidence; independent_verification_pending | provisional_content_review; primary_citation_and_reference_audit_not_complete | For **HCL Technologies Limited**, the consolidated foreign-currency translation reserve increased by **₹414 crores during FY2024** (year ended **31 March 2024**). [2](https://www.bseindia.com/xml-data/corpfiling/AttachHis/ddf08009-d43c-4949-b149-643731211e1d.pdf)
| FY2024 movement | Amount |
|---|---:|
| Opening balan... | correct | Latest single-run answer reviewed provisionally; existing content-grade category retained. Consolidated reserve 4731 to 5145 crore, movement +414 crore; period, units and OCI treatment supplied. | Not computed. Ind-AS INR statement-of-changes-in-equity figures were not retrieved; only USD-denominated IFRS filings were seen. Structure: opening FCTR + OCI translation difference − reclassification on disposal = closing (₹ crore). | abstained | Explicitly states that it did not retrieve the relevant figures and does not compute the answer. | HCLTech FY24 foreign-currency translation reserve
From HCLTech’s FY24 consolidated statement of changes in equity, the foreign-currency translation reserve moved as follows:
Item
FY24
FY23
Opening balance
(390)
50
Foreign-currency translation movement
(72)
(440)
Closing balance
(462)
(390) [[nsearchives.nseindia](https... | wrong | Reports an alternative set of figures, ₹(390) crore, ₹(72) crore, and ₹(462) crore, which does not match the consolidated INR statement figures expected here. | Opening ₹4,731cr; FY24 OCI translation movement +₹414cr; closing ₹5,145cr. | correct | Provisional agent review, 5 October 2026; independent citation audit pending. 4731+414=5145 crore on consolidated basis matches reviewed equity statement. | HCL Technologies Foreign-Currency Translation Reserve (FY24)
From HCL Technologies Limited’s (NSE:HCLTECH) Consolidated Statement of Changes in Equity (reported under IFRS currency reporting standards)link
[HCL Technologies LimitedHCLTech](https://www.hcltech.com/sites/default/files/documents/investor-reports/IFRS_Fina... | wrong | The reported opening and closing balances of ₹1,136 crore and ₹1,550 crore are incorrect; only the ₹414 crore movement coincides with the reference figure. | Note: I’m not a financial advisor, this is just my reading of the data
🚫 Couldn't pull HCL Tech's FY24 consolidated statement of changes in equity
⚠️ I couldn't verify this figure — the HCL Technologies FY24 annual report PDF isn't loading through my sources, and the exact FX translation reserve line is a precise nu... | abstained | Explicitly withholds all FY24 reserve balances and movement because filing unavailable. | https://groww.in/gr/session/8f2e8092-b64a-4dbc-9826-b39c18aff9a5 | 2026-10-13T02:04:46.130511+05:30 |
M014 | Compare FY25 deposit growth, credit growth, and gross NPA ratio for HDFC Bank, ICICI Bank, and Axis Bank using official disclosures. Which bank improved asset quality most in basis points from FY24? | peer_comparison | FY25 official results comparison: HDFC deposits +14.1%, gross advances +5.4%, GNPA 1.33% versus 1.24% (+9 bps). ICICI deposits +14.0%, total advances +13.3% or domestic advances +13.9% (label the definition), results GNPA 1.67% versus 2.16% (-49 bps). Axis deposits +10%, net advances +8%, GNPA 1.28% versus 1.43% (-15 b... | existing_reviewed_key_or_captured_evidence; independent_verification_pending | provisional_content_review; primary_citation_and_reference_audit_not_complete | The FY25 comparison is complete for **HDFC Bank Limited (NSE: HDFCBANK)** and **Axis Bank Limited (NSE: AXISBANK)**, but not for **ICICI Bank Limited (NSE: ICICIBANK)** because the retrieved official ICICI disclosures contain only Q1/Q2 FY25 data. Among the banks with comparable full-year data, **Axis Bank improved ass... | partly_correct | Latest single-run answer reviewed provisionally; existing content-grade category retained. HDFC and Axis comparison supplied, but ICICI FY25 required inputs and overall ranking unavailable. ICICI reference remains scope-sensitive. | FY25 (YoY). HDFC Bank: deposits +14.1%, gross advances +5.4%, GNPA 1.33% (FY24 1.24%; +9 bps worse). ICICI Bank: deposits +14.0%, GNPA 1.67% (FY24 2.16%; −49 bps). Axis Bank: deposits +10%, net advances +8%, GNPA 1.28% (FY24 1.43%; −15 bps). ICICI improved asset quality the most (−49 bps). | partly_correct | It provides most key figures correctly and correctly identifies ICICI as the largest improver, but omits ICICI's credit-growth figure and does not present a complete three-bank comparison. | **ICICI Bank improved asset quality the most in FY25:** its gross NPA ratio fell from 2.26% in FY24 to 1.67% in FY25, an improvement of **59 bps**. Axis improved by 15 bps, while HDFC Bank’s GNPA ratio deteriorated by 9 bps.
## FY25 comparison
| **Metric (as on 31 Mar 2025)** | **HDFC Bank** | **ICICI Bank** | **Axis... | partly_correct | User supplied the missing response and conversation URL on 4 October 2026; original run date and settings are unverified. Provisional partly-correct mark retained: HDFC and Axis figures and the ICICI ranking match the recorded reference, but ICICI FY24 GNPA is stated as 2.26% / 59 bps improvement versus the reference's... | HDFC: deposits +14.1%, advances +5.4%, GNPA 1.33%; ICICI: deposits +14.0%, advances +13.3%, GNPA 1.67%; Axis: deposits ~10%, advances ~9%, GNPA ~1.28%. ICICI improved asset quality the most versus FY24 (GNPA 2.16%→1.67% = 49 bps). | partly_correct | 5 October source adjudication: ICICI 2.16 to 1.67 and 49 bps is valid on the official results definition, not a hallucination. HDFC and ICICI metrics match the recorded results key. Axis advances approximately 9% differs from the official FY25 net-advances +8%; approximate values and absent FY24 comparative rows keep t... | Private Sector Banking Metrics (FY25)
The official standalone metrics for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2025, are outlined below:link
[ICICI Bank tops Q4 FY25 with 18% profit growth - LinkedInLinkedIn](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/srihari-charugundla-4ab0398_icicibank-q4results-financialperformance-activity-7322181... | partly_correct | The provided Google Finance-labeled answer is directionally useful and identifies ICICI as the leader, but it contains material errors in credit growth and GNPA year-on-year changes versus official FY24 figures. | Note: I’m not a financial advisor, this is just my reading of the data
📊 FY25 bank comparison
Bank Deposit growth Credit (advances) growth Gross NPA FY25 Change vs FY24
ICICI Bank +14.0% +13.3% 1.73% −53 bps (2.26% → 1.73%)
HDFC Bank +14.1% +5.4% 1.33% +9 bps (1.24% → 1.33%)
Axis Bank not verified ⚠️ not verified ⚠️ ... | partly_correct | HDFC and ICICI figures, matched annual-report ICICI -53-bps definition and winner are supported. Axis deposits and advances are missing. Ancillary claims that 100 bps equals 0.1% and HDFC has lowest GNPA contradict the supplied numbers (Axis 1.28% below HDFC 1.33%). | https://groww.in/gr/session/f74eb030-8279-4f12-9986-e92b67682bf5 | 2026-10-13T02:07:32.450651+05:30 |
M015 | Compare FY25 revenue growth and operating margin for TCS, Infosys, and HCL Technologies on the same currency and reporting basis. Explain which firm grew fastest without conflating constant-currency and reported growth. | peer_comparison | On a consolidated reported-INR basis for FY25, revenue growth was HCLTech 6.5% (₹117,055 crore), Infosys 6.1% (₹162,990 crore), and TCS 6.0% (₹255,324 crore). HCLTech therefore grew fastest on the reported basis. Separately, constant-currency growth was HCLTech 4.7%, versus 4.2% each for TCS and Infosys, so HCLTech als... | existing_reviewed_key_or_captured_evidence; independent_verification_pending | provisional_content_review; primary_citation_and_reference_audit_not_complete | For **FY2025**, on a consolidated and constant-currency basis, **HCL Technologies Ltd. (HCLTECH) grew fastest at 4.7%**, ahead of **Tata Consultancy Services Limited (TCS)** and **Infosys Ltd. (INFY)** at **4.2% each**. The tradeoff is clear: TCS had the highest operating margin at **24.3%**, while HCL Technologies had... | correct | Latest single-run answer reviewed provisionally; existing content-grade category retained. Reported INR growth, constant-currency growth and margins match recorded references; growth and margin leaders identified with basis distinction. | FY25. Reported INR growth: HCLTech +6.5% (₹1,17,055 cr), TCS +6.0% (₹2,55,324 cr), Infosys +6.1% (₹1,62,990 cr). Constant-currency growth: HCLTech 4.7%, TCS 4.2%, Infosys 4.2%. Operating/EBIT margin: TCS 24.3%, Infosys 21.1%, HCLTech 18.3%. HCLTech grew fastest on both INR and CC bases; TCS has the highest margin. | correct | Matches the correct consolidated reported-INR growth, constant-currency growth, and operating/EBIT margin figures, and correctly concludes that HCLTech led growth while TCS led margins. | TCS, Infosys, HCLTech: FY25 growth and margin
To avoid mixing bases, use reported USD revenue growth for the cross-company comparison; constant-currency growth is a separate, FX-adjusted metric.
Company
FY25 revenue
Reported USD growth
Constant-currency growth
Operating/EBIT margin
TCS
$30.18 billion
+3.8%
+4.2%
24.3% ... | partly_correct | Uses a valid common reported-USD basis and correctly identifies HCLTech as fastest and TCS as the margin leader, with correct CC figures. However, HCLTech's reported-USD growth is misstated or conflated with its CC figure; it is approximately 3.9% to 4.0%, not 4.3%. | On reported INR basis: TCS revenue growth ~6.0%, operating margin 24.3%; Infosys growth ~6.1%, margin 21.1%; HCLTech growth ~4.3%, EBIT margin 18.2%. Infosys was marginally fastest on reported INR growth; do not substitute constant-currency growth. | wrong | Provisional agent review, 5 October 2026; independent citation audit pending. HCL reported-INR growth 4.3% and Infosys winner conflict with recorded FY25 HCL 6.5%, Infosys 6.1%, TCS 6.0%; provisional primary-source audit pending. | Tier-1 IT Company Performance (FY25)
To maintain absolute uniformity, all data are evaluated on a Consolidated INR Reported Basis for FY25:link
[TCS, Infosys, HCL, Wipro: Q3 FY25 results analysis | Value ResearchValue Research](https://www.valueresearchonline.com/stories/222849/tcs-infosys-hcl-wipro-q3-fy25-results-ana... | wrong | Does not provide a valid FY25 comparison: it mixes Q3 FY25 data, gives incorrect growth figures such as Infosys 8.5% and TCS 2.4%, and reaches an incorrect fastest-growth conclusion. | Note: I’m not a financial advisor, this is just my reading of the data
tata-consultancy-services-ltd - Revenue & Net Profit Trend
2022
2024
2026
Revenue
Net Profit
Firm FY25 Revenue Reported growth vs FY24 FY25 Op margin FY24 Op margin
TCS ₹2.59 L Cr +5.7% 27.5% 28.1%
Infosys ₹1.67 L Cr +5.2% 25.7% 26.8%
HCL Tech ₹1.2... | wrong | Central FY25 reported revenue growth and operating margins differ materially from reviewed comparable INR/EBIT figures. Substitutes EBITDA margins (27.5/25.7/23.4%) for operating EBIT margins (24.3/21.1/18.3%); correct winner alone does not resolve metric error. | https://groww.in/gr/session/bef21931-337f-495d-b20f-1295d29c75d1 | 2026-10-13T02:09:02.621044+05:30 |
M016 | Compare FY25 India passenger-vehicle sales volume growth for Maruti Suzuki, Mahindra & Mahindra, and Tata Motors. Use comparable domestic PV units, not consolidated vehicle revenue. | peer_comparison | FY25 domestic passenger-vehicle volume growth: Maruti Suzuki 1,760,767 units versus 1,759,881 in FY24, up 0.05% (approximately flat); Mahindra & Mahindra 551,487 versus 459,877, up 19.9%; Tata Motors 553,585 versus 570,955, down 3.0%. Mahindra had the strongest growth, Maruti the largest volume, and Tata declined. | existing_reviewed_key_or_captured_evidence; independent_verification_pending | provisional_content_review; primary_citation_and_reference_audit_not_complete | ## FY25 domestic passenger-vehicle volume comparison
**Mahindra & Mahindra Limited (M&M) recorded the strongest FY25 domestic passenger-vehicle growth at 19.9%. Maruti Suzuki India Limited grew 2.7%, while Tata Motors Passenger Vehicles Limited declined 3.0%.** The main comparability caveat is that the companies discl... | partly_correct | Latest single-run answer reviewed provisionally; existing content-grade category retained. Maruti 1760767 versus 1759881 (0.0503%) and Mahindra 551487 versus 459877 (19.9206%) now match reviewed domestic PV figures. Tata remains missing and scope still TMCV. Complete three-company comparison not supplied. | FY25 domestic PV wholesales (SIAM basis). Maruti: ~17.61 lakh units, ~+0.1% (flat). Mahindra: ~5.51 lakh UVs, ~+19.9%. Tata Motors PV: ~5.56 lakh (company-reported wholesales incl. EV), about −3% YoY. Mahindra grew fastest. | partly_correct | Correctly identifies Mahindra as the fastest grower and Maruti as broadly flat, but gives an imprecise Tata volume estimate (~5.56 lakh) instead of approximately 553,585 units, though its roughly -3% growth is directionally correct. | FY25 India passenger-vehicle volume growth
Using domestic PV sales/dispatch units:
Company
FY25 domestic PV units
FY24 domestic PV units
Growth
Maruti Suzuki
1,760,767
1,759,881
+0.05%
Mahindra & Mahindra
551,487
459,877
+19.9%
Tata Motors
553,585
570,955
-3.0% [[auto.economictimes.indiatimes](https://auto.economictime... | correct | Provides the correct comparable domestic PV units and growth rates for all three companies and identifies Mahindra as the fastest grower. | Maruti Suzuki domestic PV growth ~2.6%; Mahindra & Mahindra domestic PV growth ~19%; Tata Motors domestic PV growth ~2.5% (comparable PV units). Mahindra was fastest. | wrong | Provisional agent review, 5 October 2026; independent citation audit pending. Tata +2.5% and Maruti +2.6% conflict with recorded comparable domestic-PV -3.0% and approximately flat; no numeric volume inputs shown. Primary-source verification pending. | Domestic Passenger Vehicle (PV) Volume Growth (FY25)
Domestic wholesale dispatch figures for the financial year ended March 31, 2025, show a market structural transition:link
[Indian Car Sales Analysis for FY2025 - Auto PunditzAutopunditz](https://www.autopunditz.com/post/indian-car-sales-analysis-for-fy2025)
Mahindra ... | wrong | Uses an incorrect Mahindra growth rate of about 16.5% and gives an ambiguous/non-comparable Tata dispatch figure and growth range rather than the domestic PV comparison. | Note: I’m not a financial advisor, this is just my reading of the data
Please type continue to analyse further. | abstained | Only requests typing continue; no domestic PV volume comparison. | https://groww.in/gr/session/cd51beac-ff6d-4f3e-921a-cbbc137fc74b | 2026-10-13T02:12:29.923481+05:30 |
M017 | Which of UltraTech, Shree Cement, and Ambuja had the highest FY25 EBITDA per tonne? Reconcile any differences between company-reported operating EBITDA and your calculation. | peer_comparison | Shree Cement had the highest FY25 EBITDA per tonne, at approximately ₹1,070/t based on EBITDA of about ₹3,837 crore and volumes of roughly 35.9 million tonnes. UltraTech was lower at approximately ₹924–₹979/t depending on whether operating EBITDA excluding other income or PBIDT including other income is used; its repor... | existing_reviewed_key_or_captured_evidence; independent_verification_pending | provisional_content_review; primary_citation_and_reference_audit_not_complete | ## Answer
A definitive FY25 winner **cannot be established from the retrieved evidence**, because Shree Cement’s FY25 annual EBITDA-per-tonne figure and matching annual sales volume are not provided. Among the directly reported FY25 figures available, **UltraTech Cement Ltd. (ULTRACEMCO) reported ₹1,101 per tonne**, a... | partly_correct | Latest single-run answer reviewed provisionally; existing content-grade category retained. Uses quarterly or unspecified-period EBITDA figures and explicitly declines full FY25 winner; requested annual ranking/reconciliation missing. | Shree Cement had the highest EBITDA/t in FY25: about ₹1,070/t (EBITDA ₹3,837 cr ÷ 35.9 mt). UltraTech: ~₹979/t on PBIDT ₹13,302 cr ÷ 135.83 mt, which includes other income; ~₹924/t on EBITDA ex-other income ₹12,557 cr; broker ~₹957/t. UltraTech ex-acquisitions Q4 operating EBITDA was ₹1,270/t. Ambuja consolidated: ~₹91... | correct | It correctly identifies Shree Cement and provides a reasonable FY25 calculation and reconciliation of differences from UltraTech's reported and adjusted EBITDA measures. | Highest FY25 EBITDA/tonne: likely Shree Cement, but not fully verifiable here
Company
FY25 EBITDA/tonne evidence
UltraTech
Company-reported operating EBITDA/mt of ₹1,270/mt excluding acquired assets, up 7% YoY; consolidated FY25 EBITDA was ₹12,557 crore. [[simplehai.axisdirect](https://simplehai.axisdirect.in/app/index... | partly_correct | It identifies Shree Cement as the likely highest, but does not verify the result and includes conflicting figures suggesting UltraTech could be highest under another methodology. Its reconciliation is incomplete. | Ambuja/UltraTech/Shree must be reconciled on the same definition. Using reported/derived consolidated operating EBITDA per tonne, UltraTech is the highest among the three on a comparable basis; company-reported operating EBITDA can differ because of freight/other adjustments and definition differences. | partly_correct | Definitively incomplete under the requested reconciliation rubric: names UltraTech as highest but gives no FY25 company EBITDA/volume inputs, computed per-tonne figures, or numerical reconciliation. General methodological warning is useful, so partial rather than abstained. Winner claim is not verified; this verdict do... | Cement Sector Blended EBITDA per Tonne (FY25)
The operational efficiency breakdown for FY25 presents the following profile:link
[Ultratech Achieves ₹1253 EBITDA per Ton, Ambuja Targets ₹1500LinkedIn](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/raj-goyal-8ba070240_100dayswithtvs-linkedin-finance-activity-7475424265572618241-zSc6)
[C... | wrong | The embedded sector comparison says UltraTech was highest at ₹1,253/t, which conflicts with the better-supported like-for-like FY25 calculation showing Shree Cement highest. | Note: I’m not a financial advisor, this is just my reading of the data
🎯 All the pieces are in — here's the FY25 per-tonne comparison with the reconciliation.
Company Reported op. EBITDA (FY25) Sales volume EBITDA/tonne Basis
Shree Cement ₹3,814 Cr (op.) 35.6 Mt ₹1,071 Company-reported, operating
UltraTech ₹13,194 C... | partly_correct | Names Shree and numerically explains other-income and one-off effects. UltraTech figure is explicitly unverified and aggregator-derived; volume/normalisation bases not fully reconciled across all three. Unresolved source definitions prevent a full grade. | https://groww.in/gr/session/2ce6e2f5-3eb3-4101-8ed4-55ed1a708082 | 2026-10-13T02:16:39.997875+05:30 |
M018 | Compare FY25 R&D spending as a percentage of revenue for Sun Pharma, Dr Reddy’s, and Cipla. State whether each disclosed figure includes capitalised development costs. | peer_comparison | FY25 R&D intensity was approximately 8.4% of revenue for Dr. Reddy’s, 6.2% of sales for Sun Pharma, and about 5.6% (reported in some disclosures as 5.5%-5.7%) for Cipla. Cipla’s headline figure is operating R&D expenditure including depreciation and excludes separately reported R&D capital expenditure/capitalised devel... | existing_reviewed_key_or_captured_evidence; independent_verification_pending | provisional_content_review; primary_citation_and_reference_audit_not_complete | ## FY25 R&D spending comparison
The reported FY25 ratios are **Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited (SUNPHARMA): 6.2%**, **Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Limited (DRREDDY): 8.4%**, and **Cipla Limited (CIPLA): 5.58%** on a consolidated basis. However, the supplied disclosures do **not consistently state whether capitalised... | partly_correct | Latest single-run answer reviewed provisionally; existing content-grade category retained. Cipla capitalization policy explained, but all three FY25 R&D percentages missing. Internal-development policy does not settle all possible capital spending. | FY25 R&D as % of revenue. Dr Reddy's ~8.4% (₹2,738 cr). Sun Pharma ~6.2% (₹3,248 cr). Cipla ~5.6% (₹1,536 cr on ₹27,548 cr revenue). All three report R&D expensed in P&L; Cipla's figure includes depreciation. Capitalised development costs are not included in these headline numbers, but confirm each company's intangible... | partly_correct | Gets the broad ranking and approximate percentages right, with only a minor Cipla rounding difference, but overstates the evidence by asserting that all three figures exclude capitalised development costs when this is not clearly disclosed for Sun Pharma and Dr. Reddy’s. | FY25 R&D intensity
Company
FY25 R&D
R&D as % of revenue
Disclosure basis
Sun Pharma
₹3,248.4 crore
6.2% of sales
Company investor presentation; described as “R&D investment.” [[sunpharma](https://sunpharma.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/SPIL-IR-Presentation-July-2025-INR.pdf)][[sunpharma](https://sunpharma.com/wp-conte... | correct | Gives the appropriate ranking and broadly correct figures—Dr. Reddy’s 8.4%, Sun 6.2%, and Cipla about 5.7%—and appropriately treats capitalisation as undisclosed for Sun and Dr. Reddy’s while identifying Cipla’s operating-expense basis. | Approximate FY25 R&D/revenue: Sun Pharma ~6.1%, Dr Reddy's 8.41%, Cipla 5.58%. Dr Reddy's was highest. Treat each company's reported R&D expense as the accounting expense disclosed in its annual report; separately capitalised development expenditure should not be assumed included unless the note explicitly says so. | partly_correct | Provisional agent review, 5 October 2026; independent citation audit pending. R&D percentages broadly match leads, but capitalization inclusion is cautioned generally rather than established for each issuer. | Pharma R&D Intensity Framework (FY25)
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries (NSE:SUNPHARMA): Spent 6.7% of its total revenue on R&D.link
[Sun Pharma Investment Analysis 2025 | PDF | Dividend - ScribdScribd](https://www.scribd.com/document/931978026/SunPharma-Fundamental-Analysis)
It excludes capitalised development costs from ... | wrong | Uses incorrect intensities for Sun Pharma and Dr. Reddy’s (6.7% and 8.6% rather than approximately 6.2% and 8.4%) and makes unsupported or incorrect claims about capitalised development costs, particularly for Dr. Reddy’s. | Note: I’m not a financial advisor, this is just my reading of the data
📊 Here's the FY25 R&D picture for all three, with the capitalisation treatment flagged.
Company FY25 R&D (% of revenue) Approx. R&D spend Capitalised development included?
Dr Reddy's 8.4% ~₹2,830 Cr No — expensed
Sun Pharma 6.1% ~₹3,340 Cr No — e... | wrong | Cipla FY25 6.2-6.4% materially differs from reviewed operating R&D 5.5-5.7%; asserts all three exclude material capitalisation without policies, and calls Cipla lowest despite its own Sun 6.1% figure. Required comparable R&D/capitalisation answer is unreliable. | https://groww.in/gr/session/05f4ee7d-1d84-4238-8a64-0b8b92a37bb9 | 2026-10-13T02:25:30.437654+05:30 |
M019 | As of 29 September 2026, identify up to three material Reliance Industries announcements since 1 July 2026 and explain the possible impact on its energy, retail, or telecom businesses. Date each announcement and separate facts from implications. | recent_development | The best-supported announcements are: (1) 17 July 2026 — RIL announced Q1 FY2026-27 financial and operational results; implication: these provide a near-term read-through on refining and petrochemical margins, retail growth, and Jio subscriber or ARPU trends. (2) 31 July 2026 — RIL disclosed the merger of step-down sub... | existing_reviewed_key_or_captured_evidence; independent_verification_pending | provisional_content_review; primary_citation_and_reference_audit_not_complete | As of **29 September 2026**, the retrieved evidence supports **one dated Reliance Industries Limited announcement event**, on **19 July 2026**. It contained three material business disclosures; no separate announcement between 1 July and 29 September is verifiable in the supplied evidence.
## Material disclosures sinc... | partly_correct | Latest single-run answer reviewed provisionally; existing content-grade category retained. Separates facts and implications for July call business updates. Does not establish comprehensive announcement scan; dates/materiality and operating figures require citation review. | Facts. (1) 14-Aug-2026: Reliance and Rolls-Royce announced strategic intent to co-develop the AMCA combat engine and to explore an aerospace gas-turbine complex. (2) 28-Aug-2026: SEBI issued its observation letter on the DRHP for the Jio Platforms IPO (fresh issue of up to 27 crore shares; dates and price not yet annou... | partly_correct | Provisional adjudication, 5 October 2026. The response separates facts from possible implications, earning limited reasoning credit. AMCA, Jio observation-letter and SKIMS announcement claims lack verified underlying documents in the review. They receive no factual credit; absence from the saved reference list does not... | Material RIL announcements since July 1, 2026
July 17, 2026 — Q1 FY2026-27 financial and operational results.
Fact: RIL published its Q1 FY27 results and related communication.[[ril](https://www.ril.com/news-media/press-releases)][[ril](https://www.ril.com/news-media)]
Implication, not a stated fact: the results are th... | partly_correct | Provisional adjudication, 5 October 2026. The dated list and explicit separation of facts from implications earn credit. Listing-page links do not establish the specific Radisys and NCD announcement documents or their materiality. These additional facts are not independently verified, so full correctness is not establi... | Three material items: 17 Jul Q1 FY27 results (Jio +12%, Retail ~+12%, group revenue +25% driven partly by oil); 14 Aug strategic intent with Rolls-Royce for AMCA engine development; 28 Aug Jio Platforms DRHP observation letter for proposed IPO. | partly_correct | Provisional adjudication, 5 October 2026. The response identifies July results and distinguishes possible business implications. Exact announcement documents for the AMCA and Jio observation-letter claims have not been verified. Credit relevant reasoning only; those additional facts receive no credit and are not declar... | Reliance Industries Limited (As of September 2026)
Three Material Announcements since July 1, 2026:
Draft Red Herring Prospectus (DRHP) Board Approval for Jio Platforms IPO (July 2026 Board Meet Updates): Official approval to initiate the public listing process for its telecommunications and digital infrastructure bran... | partly_correct | Provisional adjudication, 5 October 2026. Relevant business themes and impact discussion earn limited credit. Precise dates, the IPO approval and partnership facts are not established by verified announcement documents; guaranteed value-unlocking language is also insufficiently qualified. Those claims receive no credit... | Note: I’m not a financial advisor, this is just my reading of the data
📊 Done — here are the three most material Reliance announcements inside 1 July–29 September 2026, dated, with facts kept separate from implications.
1️⃣ 17 July 2026 — Q1 FY27 results (record EBITDA)
Facts:
Revenue ₹3,11,850 Cr, up +25.4% year-on... | partly_correct | Dates Q1 results and Series Q bond issue and labels implications. Jio IPO clearance/proceeds and detailed event claims are not established by the existing reference evidence; source URLs absent. Alternative announcements need verification, not automatic rejection for differing from illustrative key. | https://groww.in/gr/session/b334fcf4-6dc7-41c1-a165-3fdf64e15ef1 | 2026-10-13T02:59:21.589226+05:30 |
M020 | As of 29 September 2026, did Infosys change its FY27 revenue or margin guidance in any official release since 1 July 2026? Give the exact old and new ranges if it did, or state that you found no change. | recent_development | Yes. In its 23 July 2026 Q1 FY27 official release, Infosys revised FY27 constant-currency revenue-growth guidance from 1.5%-3.5% to 1.5%-3.0%. FY27 operating-margin guidance remained unchanged at 20%-22%. | verified_against_user_supplied_pdfs_page_1; independent_audit_pending | provisional_content_review; primary_citation_and_reference_audit_not_complete | ## Answer
Yes. **Infosys Limited (INFY) narrowed its FY27 revenue-growth guidance on 23 July 2026**, while leaving its operating-margin guidance unchanged.
| Guidance | Earlier range | New range | Change |
|---|---:|---:|---|
| FY27 revenue growth, constant currency | **1.5%–3.5%** | **1.5%–3.0%** | Upper end reduced... | correct | Latest single-run answer reviewed provisionally; existing content-grade category retained. Old revenue range 1.5-3.5 changed to 1.5-3.0 on 23 July 2026; margin 20-22 unchanged. Facts match user-supplied releases. Citation links point to generic NSE announcement landing page rather than specific release: citation precis... | Yes. On 23 July 2026, with its Q1 FY27 results, Infosys cut its FY27 revenue guidance and kept its margin guidance unchanged.
| **FY27 guidance** | **Old (Q4 FY26 release, April 2026)** | **New (Q1 FY27 release, 23 July 2026)** |
| --------------------------------- | ------------------------------------- | -----------... | correct | Core guidance dates and old/new ranges match the previously checked user-supplied Infosys PDFs. Same content standard as Clartha, Google Finance and Perplexity M020. Claude explicitly states it used secondary filing summaries and qualifies search completeness. Citation verification remains separate: these URLs and the ... | Finding as of 29 September 2026
Infosys did change its FY27 revenue-growth guidance, but did not change its operating-margin guidance in any official release issued since 1 July 2026.
Guidance Earlier range Revised range Change
FY27 constant-currency revenue growth 1.5%–3.5% 1.5%–3.0% Upper end reduced by 0.5 percenta... | correct | Core answer matches the user-supplied Infosys April/July releases already recorded in this benchmark: revenue guidance 1.5–3.5% -> 1.5–3.0% on 23 July, margin 20–22% unchanged. Same content standard as Clartha M020. The paste contains no source URLs; citation precision is unverified. Additional 23 October calendar date... | Yes. **Infosys changed its FY27 revenue-growth guidance after 1 July 2026, but did not change its operating-margin guidance.**
On **23 July 2026**, with its Q1 FY27 results, Infosys revised:
| **Guidance** | **FY26 / April 2026 guidance** | **Revised 23 July 2026** | **Change** |
| --- | ---: | ---: | ---: |
| **FY27... | correct | Matches recorded Infosys reference: FY27 CC revenue guidance 1.5–3.5% to 1.5–3.0%; margin 20–22% unchanged. Ancillary management commentary not independently verified. | Yes, Infosys ([NSE:INFY](https://www.google.com/finance/quote/INFY:NSE)) changed its FY27 revenue guidance during its Q1 FY27 earnings release on July 23, 2026.
The exact guidance changes made since July 1, 2026, are as follows:
- **FY27 Revenue Growth Guidance (in constant currency):** Changed from the old range of ... | correct | Latest user-supplied response matches the previously checked April/July Infosys PDFs: revenue guidance 1.5–3.5% -> 1.5–3.0% on 23 July 2026; operating margin remains 20–22%. Correct under the same content standard used for Clartha and Perplexity M020. Direct official release URL is supplied; additional news URLs were n... | Note: I’m not a financial advisor, this is just my reading of the data
🎯 Yes — guidance was cut on 23 July 2026
Infosys revised its FY27 revenue guidance in its Q1 FY27 results release (quarter ended 30 June 2026):
Item Old (from Apr 2026) New (from 23 Jul 2026)
Revenue growth (constant currency) 1.5% – 3.5% 1.5% –... | correct | Revenue CC range 1.5-3.5% to 1.5-3.0% on 23 July 2026; margin 20-22% retained. Matches recorded official-release facts. Ancillary client-specific driver not independently verified. | https://groww.in/gr/session/f9a16a9a-5f73-4c8b-a59f-af06fa9ffde0 | 2026-10-13T04:15:21.164957+05:30 |
End of preview. Expand in Data Studio
Fin50: Financial Research Benchmark
50 research questions | 6 AI products | Updated: 13 October 2026
Original five-product results snapshot: 5 October 2026. Groww AI (GR-1) responses collected and graded on 13 October 2026.
Overview
Fin50 evaluates the quality of AI-generated responses to financial research questions using reference answers, available supporting citations and structured correctness assessments.
The benchmark compares six AI products: Clartha, Claude, Perplexity Finance, ChatGPT, Groww AI (GR-1) and Google Finance. It is designed to assess how effectively these systems answer financial questions, interpret information and deliver accurate, relevant research insights.
Dataset
The accompanying fin50.csv contains 50 questions, reference answers, product responses, verdicts and grading notes. Reference answers were cross-checked against responses from multiple AI platforms and reviewed by the Clartha team. Independent source verification remains incomplete. Response assessments use provisional AI-assisted grading reviewed by the Clartha team.
Each product response is classified as:
correct— meets the correctness criteria.partly_correct— provides a substantially or partially correct answer but has gaps or inaccuracies.wrong— contains material errors or fails to answer correctly.abstained— no substantive answer was recorded.
Execution failures are included in abstentions and identified separately in the grading notes: one for Clartha and two for Groww AI (M041 and M042). Groww's other ten abstentions comprise seven replies asking to type “continue” and three filing requests with no core answer. Multibagg is excluded from the comparison because only three responses were collected.
Groww fields are groww_ai_answer, groww_ai_verdict, groww_ai_grading_notes, groww_ai_response_url and groww_ai_collected_at. Chat links and collection timestamps preserve the recorded run; a chat may require access to the original account. M042's answer is empty because generation completed without rendering an answer; its failure is documented in the grading notes.
Results
| Product | Correct | Partly correct | Wrong | Abstained |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clartha | 20 | 24 | 0 | 6 |
| Claude | 18 | 16 | 2 | 14 |
| Perplexity Finance | 11 | 19 | 12 | 8 |
| ChatGPT | 10 | 26 | 9 | 5 |
| Groww AI (GR-1) | 7 | 21 | 10 | 12 |
| Google Finance | 7 | 19 | 23 | 1 |
Results reflect the recorded responses across the 50-question evaluation set. Fully correct and partly correct responses are reported separately to preserve the distinction between accuracy and completeness.
Groww AI and Google Finance tie on fully correct count. Row order within that tie does not represent a separate weighted ranking.
Methodology
Fin50 combines cross-checked reference answers with structured response assessments and question-level grading notes. The current release is a development-set evaluation and captures results collected across different dates and product configurations. Model versions and testing settings were not consistently recorded, so results are interpreted within the scope of the collected evaluation set.
For the Groww extension, all 50 original prompts were submitted individually in fresh chats. The first response was retained; no follow-up continuation prompts or best-of-retry answer selection were used. Recovering a stalled chat's saved result did not change its answer. Groww grades are a provisional AI-assisted content review against the existing references, question requirements and prior adjudications; an independent primary-source audit remains incomplete. Original five-product answers and verdicts were retained unchanged.
The review considered factual correctness, completeness, entity and reporting basis, period and cutoff, calculations and units, source support, uncertainty, and the separation of facts from guidance and inference. Scenario assumptions and conditional preferences were not required to match illustrative reference examples. No frozen blind judge model, prompt or judge configuration was used. Some existing references retain unresolved scope or definition conflicts, documented in the grading notes, and are not treated as independently certified ground truth.
The benchmark is intended to support comparative analysis of financial research quality and provide a foundation for more extensive, standardized evaluations. These results do not establish general product superiority or investment outcomes.
Data and licensing
The dataset preserves the reviewed responses, reference answers, available citations within the answer text, verdicts and grading notes. It does not contain separate citation columns for every product. Question-level reference_status and grading_status fields document the associated review information.
No dataset license has been assigned. Reuse and redistribution terms will depend on the rights applicable to the questions, source materials and collected product responses.
- Downloads last month
- 49