Skip to content
Fifth Order
← Benchmarks

Financial Analysis · Fifth Order

Guidance Reconciliation

Models reconcile reported results and management guidance across a collection of earnings releases, filings and transcripts. Evaluation checks consistent fiscal periods and units, distinguishes actuals from forward ranges, tracks changed guidance and verifies midpoint arithmetic against cited evidence. A rubric score combines numerical reconciliation and evidence support across 40 cases; higher scores indicate more complete, defensible trackers.

Model results

28 configurations
RankModelScore
  1. 1
    OpenAIGPT 6.1 Sol Max reasoning
    89.2%
  2. 2
    MetaMuse Wonder 1.0 Max reasoning
    87.5%
  3. 3
    AnthropicClaude Opus 5.5 Adaptive/Max
    86.1%
  4. 4
    xAIGrok 4.7 xHigh reasoning
    85.6%
  5. 5
    AnthropicClaude Sonnet 5.5 Adaptive/Max
    84.8%
  6. 6
    AnthropicClaude Fable 5.1 Adaptive/Max
    84.4%
  7. 7
    OpenAIGPT 6 Astra Max reasoning
    83.2%
  8. 8
    AnthropicClaude Fable 5 Adaptive/Max
    83.1%
  9. 9
    GoogleGemini 4 Argon High reasoning
    82.6%
  10. 10
    AnthropicClaude Opus 5 Adaptive/Max
    81.9%
  11. 11
    ZhipuGLM 5.3 Max reasoning
    81.4%
  12. 12
    OpenAIGPT 6 Sol Max reasoning
    80.3%
  13. 13
    MetaMuse Spark 1.3 Max reasoning
    79.8%
  14. 14
    MetaMuse Spark 1.2 xHigh reasoning
    79.6%
  15. 15
    OpenAIGPT 5.6 Sol Max reasoning
    79.2%
  16. 16
    xAIGrok 4.6 xHigh reasoning
    78.8%
  17. 17
    TencentHy4 Preview High reasoning
    78.3%
  18. 18
    MoonshotKimi K3 Max reasoning
    77.1%
  19. 19
    AlibabaQwen 3.8 Max xHigh reasoning
    76.7%
  20. 20
    AnthropicClaude Sonnet 5 Adaptive/Max
    76.3%
  21. 21
    DeepSeekDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 Max reasoning
    75.9%
  22. 22
    GoogleGemini 3.7 Flash High reasoning
    75.6%
  23. 23
    DeepSeekDeepSeek V4 Pro Max reasoning
    74.5%
  24. 24
    ZhipuGLM 5.3 Flash Max reasoning
    74.2%
  25. 25
    GoogleGemini 3.8 Flash High reasoning
    73.8%
  26. 26
    OpenAIGPT 6 Luna Max reasoning
    72.8%
  27. 27
    MistralMistral Large 4 High reasoning
    71.2%
  28. 28
    OpenAIGPT 5.6 Luna Max reasoning
    70.7%
Numeric table · 28 configurations
Rubric score · highest first
RankModel / settingScore
1
OpenAIGPT 6.1 Sol Max reasoning
89.2%
2
MetaMuse Wonder 1.0 Max reasoning
87.5%
3
AnthropicClaude Opus 5.5 Adaptive/Max
86.1%
4
xAIGrok 4.7 xHigh reasoning
85.6%
5
AnthropicClaude Sonnet 5.5 Adaptive/Max
84.8%
6
AnthropicClaude Fable 5.1 Adaptive/Max
84.4%
7
OpenAIGPT 6 Astra Max reasoning
83.2%
8
AnthropicClaude Fable 5 Adaptive/Max
83.1%
9
GoogleGemini 4 Argon High reasoning
82.6%
10
AnthropicClaude Opus 5 Adaptive/Max
81.9%
11
ZhipuGLM 5.3 Max reasoning
81.4%
12
OpenAIGPT 6 Sol Max reasoning
80.3%
13
MetaMuse Spark 1.3 Max reasoning
79.8%
14
MetaMuse Spark 1.2 xHigh reasoning
79.6%
15
OpenAIGPT 5.6 Sol Max reasoning
79.2%
16
xAIGrok 4.6 xHigh reasoning
78.8%
17
TencentHy4 Preview High reasoning
78.3%
18
MoonshotKimi K3 Max reasoning
77.1%
19
AlibabaQwen 3.8 Max xHigh reasoning
76.7%
20
AnthropicClaude Sonnet 5 Adaptive/Max
76.3%
21
DeepSeekDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 Max reasoning
75.9%
22
GoogleGemini 3.7 Flash High reasoning
75.6%
23
DeepSeekDeepSeek V4 Pro Max reasoning
74.5%
24
ZhipuGLM 5.3 Flash Max reasoning
74.2%
25
GoogleGemini 3.8 Flash High reasoning
73.8%
26
OpenAIGPT 6 Luna Max reasoning
72.8%
27
MistralMistral Large 4 High reasoning
71.2%
28
OpenAIGPT 5.6 Luna Max reasoning
70.7%
Methodology & reference example

Version finance-index-v1 · October 1–28, 2026 · 40 cases per component. Four equally weighted rubric criteria produce a 0–100 score: periods and units; actuals versus outlook; range and midpoint reconciliation; evidence support. The Credo packet below is an authored reference example, not a model run or the source of these cohort scores.

Task instructions

Using only the source packet available at the cutoff, produce a period/metric/reported-actual/guidance table. Reconcile the guided range against the reported quarter, label every derived quantity, cite the sources, and keep the unreported quarter's outcome open. Do not infer realized results or fill missing fields with invented data.

Credo Technology Group packet

Public results release · June 1, 2026 · historical cutoff June 11, 2026 · USD millions unless stated

Credo FY2026 results · June 1, 2026

Company release · June 1, 2026. Q4 FY2026 (ended May 2, 2026) revenue of $437.0 million, up 7.4% sequentially and up 157.0% year over year. Q4 non-GAAP gross margin 68.3% (GAAP 68.2%). Q4 non-GAAP diluted EPS $1.16 (GAAP $0.88). FY2026 revenue $1,335.116 million versus $436.775 million in FY2025. Q1 FY2027 outlook: revenue $465–475 million; non-GAAP gross margin 67–69%; GAAP gross margin 66.9–68.9%; GAAP and non-GAAP operating expenses.

SEC exhibit mirror · June 1, 2026

SEC-filed exhibit mirroring the June 1, 2026 results release. The same reported figures apply: Q4 FY2026 revenue $437.0 million, non-GAAP gross margin 68.3%, non-GAAP diluted EPS $1.16, and Q1 FY2027 guidance covering revenue of $465–475 million, non-GAAP gross margin of 67–69%, GAAP gross margin of 66.9–68.9%, and GAAP and non-GAAP operating expenses.

Authored reference output

Guidance tracker — Credo Q1 FY2027 outlook

As of the June 11, 2026 cutoff, Q1 FY2027 results do not exist, so no guidance outcome is scored. The tracker records what was guided, its basis, and the checkpoint that will resolve it.

Q4 FY2026 actuals and Q1 FY2027 outlook comparison
MetricQ4 FY2026 actualQ1 FY2027 guidanceBasis / dateNext checkpoint
Revenue (USD m)437.0465–475Guidance · June 1, 2026Q1 FY2027 report
Revenue midpoint vs Q4—+7.55% (derived)Analyst arithmetic on guidanceQ1 FY2027 report
Non-GAAP gross margin68.3%67–69%Guidance · June 1, 2026Q1 FY2027 report
GAAP gross margin68.2%66.9–68.9%Guidance · June 1, 2026Q1 FY2027 report
Non-GAAP diluted EPS$1.16Not guidedReported actual only—

Guidance is a management outlook, not an actual. Rows without guided values stay empty rather than being extrapolated.

Reading the tracker

Reported actuals, management guidance and derived arithmetic are kept in separate columns. The derived +7.55% midpoint comparison is analyst arithmetic on the guided range, not a company statement.

Credo FY2026 results · June 1, 2026

Resolution

This tracker resolves only when Credo reports Q1 FY2027. Until then, treating the guide as achieved — or as missed — would be an assumption, and this cutoff contains no later information.

Credo FY2026 results · June 1, 2026 · SEC exhibit mirror · June 1, 2026

Criterion-level review approach

Periods & units
Keep fiscal periods consistent; distinguish USD millions, percentages and percentage-point changes, and never mix GAAP with non-GAAP bases.
Reported vs guidance vs derived
Separate reported actuals from management guidance and from analyst arithmetic such as midpoints; the Q1 FY2027 outlook is guidance, not a later actual.
Numerical reconciliation
Reconcile the $465–475m range, the $470m midpoint and the derived +7.55% against the reported $437.0m quarter at full precision before rounding.
Source support & required fields
Trace every field to the June 1, 2026 release or its SEC mirror; do not add segment detail or an unsupported full-year forecast.
Unresolved outcomes
Leave the guidance outcome open: no actual exists at the June 11, 2026 cutoff, so nothing is scored as achieved or missed.