Pinegap

Pinegap is built around how a fundamental analyst works. Co-founded by a former J.P. Morgan equity analyst, it organises agents around primers, earnings, conferences, proxy and forensic reviews, social media and fund letters, and pushes results to the analyst rather than waiting for a prompt. It raised an $8m Series A led by Stellaris in August 2026, reports more than 100 institutional clients including five of the ten largest New York multi-managers, and has a verified Claude connector.

The public evidence base is thin. SOC 2 compliance is claimed without type or date, and SCIM, audit logs, residency options, information-barrier controls, citation controls, evaluation results and pricing were not located. Content has no expert, broker or consensus data, and client counts differ between the company's own pages. The team is about 20 people.

We initiate at 5.23, Niche/Watch, with an Improving outlook. Workflow Fit, at 6.58, is its strength; Data & Content (3.83) and Enterprise Readiness (4.36) reflect missing evidence more than demonstrated weakness. A completed questionnaire would likely move several sub-criteria; we would expect to revisit the rating once it is returned.

Strengths

• Analyst design. Modules mirror a long/short analyst's routine — primer, earnings, conferences, proxy, risk and thesis tracking.
• Push agents. Scheduled and event-triggered output delivered to the analyst's inbox.
• Distribution. A verified Claude connector (June 2026) and MCP access from ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, Gemini and Cursor.
• Coverage beyond filings. Podcasts, X, Reddit, Substack and fund letters alongside filings and transcripts for 25,000+ companies.
• Traction claims. 100+ institutional clients and five of the top ten New York multi-managers (company).
• Disclosed model providers. OpenAI and Azure OpenAI with a Google fallback, named in policy.

Cautions

• Security evidence. "SOC 2 compliance" is claimed without type, auditor or date; ISO 27001, SCIM, customer audit logs and residency options were not located.
• Compliance controls. MNPI and information-barrier controls were not located.
• Downstream training. Pinegap's no-training pledge does not address the model providers it uses.
• Content scope. No expert, broker or consensus data, and data providers are not named.
• Evaluation. No evaluation or citation controls were located.
• Inconsistent figures. Client counts ("100+ institutions" and "250+ funds"), headcount and report volumes differ across sources.
• Pricing and scale. No public pricing, and a team of about 20.