Open demonstration · no account needed
One real company, scored in full
Every score this platform produces is arithmetic over published data. Below is the entire calculation for Apple Inc. — each component, the weight it carries, and the sum that produces the number. You can check it by hand.
How this score was reached
Each dimension is scored 0–100 against the company’s sector peers, then multiplied by its weight. The right-hand column adds up to the composite. Nothing is estimated, and no language model computes any of it.
How this score is calculated
Every number below comes from the stored breakdown. Add the right-hand column and you get the composite.
| Module | Score | Weight | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fundamental | 52 | 45% | 23.40 |
| Technical | 61 | 10% | 6.10 |
| Macro | 44 | 20% | 8.80 |
| Sentiment | 59 | 5% | 2.95 |
| Risk | 82 | 20% | 16.40 |
| Composite | 58(57.65) | ||
How the score has moved
The same calculation, replayed at past dates using only the filings and prices available on each of those dates.
2015-11-09 to 2026-11-09. Read this as a record of the measurement, not a track record: earlier dates are scored from fewer inputs, because news and insider data begin in 2026 and economic data in 2019. When a dimension is missing its weight is redistributed, so an older score is built from a narrower base than a recent one.
What each dimension asks
- Fundamental
- Is this company financially healthy and attractively valued?
- Technical
- What is price momentum saying, and is entry timing favorable?
- Macro
- Is the current macro environment favorable or hostile for this stock?
- Sentiment
- What is the collective market mood, and is it shifting?
- RiskHigher = lower risk
- How much downside risk does this stock carry, and what kind?
What the score was tested against
Most scoring tools publish no validation at all. Ours is below, including the part that does not flatter us. The engine was replayed across 18years of market history — 52,972 measurements over 213monthly dates — scoring every company using only the filings and prices available on each of those dates, with no hindsight.
What held up: weaker scores preceded far more severe falls
| Score band | Fell over 30% | Lost over half |
|---|---|---|
| Strong — 70 and above | 6.4% | 1.6% |
| Middle — 47 to 61 | 5.5% | 1.3% |
| Weak — below 38 | 11.8% | 4.6% |
Read the bottom row against the top: 4.6% of the weakest-scored companies were worth less than half as much a year later, against 1.6% of the strongest-scored — so the weakest band landed in that outcome roughly three times as often. Both figures are small in absolute terms; the gap between them is the point. The pattern appeared in 75% of the 213 periods measured. Through the 2008 crisis and the 2020 crash, 3.6% of strongly-scored companies were wiped out against 11.1% of weakly-scored ones.
Companies worth more a year later
| Score band | Share that rose |
|---|---|
| Strong — 70 and above | 71.6% |
| Favourable — 62 to 69 | 70.2% |
| Middle — 47 to 61 | 70.0% |
| Elevated risk — 38 to 46 | 69.8% |
| Weak — below 38 | 65.6% |
What did not hold up
A high score did not lead to a larger gain. Strongly-scored companies returned 13.8% a year on average, against 17.2%for an equal share of every company we cover — 3.4 percentage points less. The explanation is visible in the crisis figures above: the score favours steadier companies, and steadier companies fall less in a crash but also recover less in a rally. Those are different properties, and this score measures the first.
So the score is not evidence that a strong rating precedes a rise in price. We tested that directly, across both investor profiles and every horizon from three days to two years, and found no such relationship. We therefore make no claim of one.
Limits you should know about
- Companies that went bankrupt are largely missing from our historical data — only 1.16% of the measurements are companies that later disappeared. The collapse rates above are therefore conservative floors rather than precise figures. The gap between the bands would most likely widen, not narrow, if those companies were included.
- Scores before 2019 were built from fewer inputs, because our economic data begins then and our news and insider data begins in 2026. Where a dimension is missing its weight is redistributed, so an older score rests on a narrower base.
- Every figure describes what has already happened. None of it is a forecast, and past behaviour does not carry an obligation to repeat.
Figures as of October 2026. They are regenerated when the engine changes.