CryptoPotatovsFinancial Times
CryptoPotato (34.9% hit rate) vs Financial Times (37.5% hit rate): how often each source’s headline tone matched the later price move.
Neither did better against chance than the other
Based on 2197 and 3149 checked headlines
Hit rate
Checked reports
Articles Analyzed
Avg. Relevance
Sentiment & Bias Analysis
How bullish or bearish each source’s headlines tend to be.
Sentiment Distribution
CryptoPotato
Financial Times
Market Context Coverage
| Hit rate by market | CryptoPotato | Financial Times |
|---|---|---|
| AI infrastructure bonds | — | 1 (0%) |
| Anthropic IPO | — | 1 (0%) |
| Argentine peso | — | 1 (0%) |
| Asian stocks | 1 (0%) | 85 (6%) |
| Australian stocks | — | 23 (2%) |
| Avalanche | 2 (0%) | — |
| BNB | 1 (0%) | 3 (0%) |
| Bitcoin | 490 (54%) | 18 (1%) |
| Brazilian markets | — | 1 (0%) |
| Cardano | 23 (3%) | — |
| China 10-year government bonds | — | 1 (0%) |
| Copper | — | 2 (0%) |
| Cronos | 1 (0%) | — |
| DAX | — | 10 (1%) |
| Dogecoin | 3 (0%) | — |
| EUR/USD | — | 4 (0%) |
| Ethereum | 154 (17%) | — |
| European natural gas | — | 1 (0%) |
| European stocks | — | 72 (5%) |
| French bond | — | 1 (0%) |
| Glencore | — | 1 (0%) |
| Gold | — | 44 (3%) |
| HYPE | 1 (0%) | — |
| HYPE cryptocurrency | 1 (0%) | — |
| HYPE token | 1 (0%) | — |
| Hyperliquid | 1 (0%) | — |
| Indian stocks | — | 72 (5%) |
| Indonesian | — | 1 (0%) |
| Indonesian stock | — | 1 (0%) |
| Japanese stocks | 1 (0%) | 52 (4%) |
| Kazakh tenge | — | 1 (0%) |
| Lido | 1 (0%) | — |
| MANTRA | 1 (0%) | — |
| NASDAQ | — | 12 (1%) |
| NEAR | 1 (0%) | — |
| Oil | — | 411 (29%) |
| Pi Network | 3 (0%) | — |
| Pi Network cryptocurrency | 2 (0%) | — |
| SIREN token | 1 (0%) | — |
| Silver | — | 3 (0%) |
| Solana | 6 (1%) | — |
| South Korean | — | 1 (0%) |
| Tokenized | 1 (0%) | — |
| Turkish | — | 1 (0%) |
| UK markets | — | 79 (6%) |
| US banking sector | — | 1 (0%) |
| US short-term interest rates | — | 1 (0%) |
| USA | 1 (0%) | 221 (16%) |
| USD/JPY | — | 20 (1%) |
| XRP | 134 (15%) | — |
| Zcash | 1 (0%) | — |
| altcoins | 1 (0%) | — |
| critical minerals | — | 1 (0%) |
| cryptocurrencies (Crypto) | 77 (8%) | 17 (1%) |
| global food | — | 1 (0%) |
| global markets | 1 (0%) | 147 (10%) |
| high-yield credit markets | — | 1 (0%) |
| junk-rated corporate bonds | — | 1 (0%) |
| private | — | 1 (0%) |
| private markets | — | 1 (0%) |
| technology stocks (Tech) | 1 (0%) | 101 (7%) |
See today's news picture — not a forecast
A short, free daily e-mail with the most relevant market news and which way the coverage leans, with sources.
Get Free AI Market Insights
The news picture for your markets, read by AI. Free, no credit card required.
AI-Analysed Market Trends
Browse the analysed trends for free
Your Own Dashboard
Watchlists and the News Picture, whenever you check
How often the news was right
Each source’s hit rate, compared with chance
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is more reliable: CryptoPotato or Financial Times?▼
How are these comparisons calculated?▼
What markets do CryptoPotato and Financial Times both cover?▼
Our Methodology
AI classifies each article's tone as up, down or sideways for the market it covers. From the first price a reader could trade after publication we check the move after 1, 3 and 7 days. A source's hit rate is compared with chance for the same calls and outcomes within each market, so covering calm or busy markets earns nothing. Each difference comes with a 95 % interval; checks close in time are resampled together in blocks of 7 or 14 days, because they share market moves. A verdict needs at least 300 checks and must hold after correcting for the number of sources tested (Holm). This answers "did the market move that way?": a hit rate, not a return. AIamond makes no forecasts of its own.