PitchBook vs Brazil CVM Filings API
PitchBook vs CVM filings API compares different products. PitchBook focuses on private markets / company intelligence research UX. apicvm focuses on CVM regulatory filings over HTTP. Complementary — never "replace PitchBook".
Side-by-side
| Capability | PitchBook | apicvm |
|---|---|---|
| Private markets / research UX | Core product focus | No |
| CVM DFP/ITR/FRE PDF by document ID | Not the product shape | Yes |
| Resolve by Brazilian ticker / CNPJ for filings | Not a filings API | Yes |
| Async page markdown extraction | No | Yes (Pro) |
Developer shape
import os, requests
BASE = os.environ["APICVM_URL"]
H = {"Authorization": f"Bearer {os.environ['APICVM_KEY']}"}
company = requests.get(
f"{BASE}/v1/companies/resolve",
headers=H,
params={"query": "PETR4", "by": "ticker"},
).json()Pair PitchBook (or any quotes/research stack) with apicvm when models need the filing PDF. See Quotes APIs vs filings.
When apicvm is the better fit
- Regulatory document archives for Brazil
- Agent tools that must cite CVM document UUIDs
- FRE section retrieval
When PitchBook is the better fit
- Workloads centered on private markets screens and company intelligence
- Apps that do not need Brazilian CVM PDF filings
- Teams standardized on PitchBook elsewhere
Current limitations
- apicvm does not ship OHLCV endpoints
- We do not document PitchBook's entitlements or symbol coverage
- Filings availability follows ingestion, not tick prints
Next steps
Ready to integrate?
Get an API key and start querying Brazilian CVM filings programmatically.