In April, amid growing speculation that she would run for president, Sen. Elizabeth Warren gave a pivotal speech titled "The Unfinished Business of Financial Reform." In it, Warren laid out what the next Democratic president could and must do to complete the task of post-crisis financial reform.

Specifically, Warren said the next president’s agenda should:

1. Defend Dodd-Frank against attempts to weaken or compromise it.
2. Scale up enforcement, investigations and convictions: "When big financial institutions are not deterred from breaking the law… then that’s what they will do."
3. "Tackle the shadow-banking sector," which created "runs and panics in the short-term debt markets that spread the contagion across the financial system."
4. Create a "targeted financial transactions tax."
5. Break up the biggest banks. First "cap the size of the biggest financial institutions," then create a new Glass-Steagall Act "that rebuilds the wall between commercial banking and investment banking."
Warren didn’t wind up running for president. But her five points are a good rubric for evaluating Hillary Clinton’s newly released plan to tame Wall Street. Clinton’s agenda is a very detailed and comprehensive dive into financial reform. It is broad, covering parts of the financial markets that aren’t often discussed. If anything, it goes into such footnoted specifics that it can be overly wonky. But it fits into the Warren framework well enough to compare and contrast the two approaches.

Using the Warren criteria, Clinton gets points on the first four, but approaches the fifth by working through Dodd-Frank rather than against it. Bernie Sanders gets major points on the last two, but hasn’t gotten specific on tackling shadow banking and the broader financial sector. Rather than stronger or weaker, we’re left with two different ways of prioritizing financial reform, with Sanders focusing on eliminating the threat of the largest banks and Clinton looking to the financial markets as a whole.