Methodology
How we rank tools
Tools do different jobs, so we rank them per job: research platforms, stock screeners, charting tools, portfolio trackers and stock pick services. In each list a tool gets an overall score out of 5. I sign off the final order of every list.
Four sub-scores
Every tool gets a score from 1 to 5 on each sub-score that applies to the job. We multiply each by its weight for that job and add them up. Research depth applies to research platforms, screeners and stock pick services; charting tools and portfolio trackers are judged on features, value and ease.
Original insight rather than republished data: its own ratings or scores, its own fair value or valuation model, original written analysis or analyst coverage, and years of financial history.
Own ratings or scores (0 to 2) + own fair value model (1, or 0.5 for a valuation grade only) + original analysis (0 to 2) + financial history (20+ years 1, 10 years 0.75, less 0.4): score = 1 + 4 x (points / 6). Tools that mainly republish other providers' data or analyst forecasts score lower.
Checked factsThe capabilities this job needs, as confirmed on official pages.
Counts ratings or fair value, screener, charts, alerts, portfolio tracking, data export: score = 1 + 4 x (confirmed / 6).
Checked factsWhat the cheapest paid plan costs, and whether you can try it free or get a refund.
60% price (Cheapest paid plan at its lowest list price per month (yearly billing if offered, intro offers ignored): USD 10 or less = 5, up to 20 = 4, up to 35 = 3, up to 60 = 2, over 60 = 1) and 40% free plan, trial or refund (Free plan plus free trial of a paid plan = 5, free plan only = 4, no free plan but a free trial or money-back guarantee = 2, neither = 1).
Checked factsClear layout, plain explanations and how quickly a new investor finds their way.
Our rating for how clear the layout is and how quickly a new investor finds their way. We update it when we test the tool.
Our ratingWeights per job
The weights change with the job. Research depth matters most for research platforms and stock pick services, features matter most for screeners and charts, and ease of use counts for every job.
See the scoring details
| Job | Research depth | Features and data | Value for money | Ease of use |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Research and ratings | 45% | 20% | 15% | 20% |
| Find stocks with a screener | 29% | 35% | 18% | 18% |
| Charts | - | 50% | 25% | 25% |
| Track my portfolio and dividends | - | 38% | 31% | 31% |
| Stock pick services | 47% | 5% | 27% | 21% |
Features and data counts different things per job. Research: 6 items. Portfolio trackers also count automatic broker sync and a dividend focus. Each job page lists exactly what counts.
Global coverage is a filter, not a score
Which markets a tool covers (US, UK, EU and Rest of world listed stocks) does not change its quality score. A tool that only covers US stocks can still be the best tool for US stocks. Instead, each list shows a separate Global coverage badge, for example Global 4/4, counted from the tool's official coverage pages (a partly covered market counts as half).
On every ranking page you can pick the markets you invest in. Tools that do not cover a picked market move to the end of the list and are flagged. The Find my tool quiz works the same way. If you pick only US, the order does not change.
Research depth
Research depth measures original insight: does the tool add its own ratings, fair value models, written analysis and long financial history, or does it mainly republish data and analyst forecasts from other providers? Each part is scored from the tool's own official pages.
In short: tools with their own ratings, fair value and written analysis score highest; tools that mostly pass on other providers' data score lower.
See the scoring details
| Tool | Depth | Own ratings | Fair value | Analysis | History | Why |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| InvestingPro | 4.8 | 2/2 | 1/1 | 2/2 | 0.75/1 | Own Financial Health Score and ProTips; fair value from 15+ valuation models you can inspect; large library of 1,400+ Pro Research reports; 10 years of financials (Pro+). [1][2][3] |
| Morningstar Investor | 4.7 | 2/2 | 1/1 | 2/2 | 0.5/1 | Own star ratings and moat ratings from its analysts, analyst fair value estimates and written analyst research. [1][2] |
| Seeking Alpha | 4.5 | 2/2 | 0.5/1 | 2/2 | 0.75/1 | Own Quant Ratings and five Factor Grades on every US stock; valuation is a grade, not a fair value; large library of written analysis on 4,000+ stocks; 10 years of financials. [1][2][3] |
| Simply Wall St | 4.0 | 2/2 | 1/1 | 1/2 | 0.5/1 | Own Snowflake score from 30 checks and a DCF fair value; company reports are generated from data, plus community narratives. [1][2] |
| Zacks Premium | 3.7 | 2/2 | 0.5/1 | 1/2 | 0.5/1 | Own Zacks Rank and Style Scores (value is a score, not a fair value); own equity research reports. [1] |
| Stock Rover | 3.5 | 1.5/2 | 1/1 | 0.5/2 | 0.75/1 | Own Stock Ratings, Scores and Investor Warnings; own DCF fair value and margin of safety; research reports are generated (extra cost on Premium); 10 years of fundamentals on Premium Plus. [1][2] |
| WallStreetZen | 3.0 | 1/2 | 1/1 | 0.5/2 | 0.5/1 | Own Zen Ratings and due diligence checks; own DCF fair value estimate; written explanations are automated. [1][2] |
| TipRanks | 2.7 | 1/2 | 0/1 | 1/2 | 0.5/1 | Own Smart Score; tracks and ranks Wall Street analysts and other experts; no own fair value model found. [1] |
| TradingView | 2.0 | 0.5/2 | 0/1 | 0.5/2 | 0.5/1 | Computed technical ratings only; ideas are written by community members, not TradingView. [1] |
| Stock Analysis | 1.7 | 0/2 | 0/1 | 0/2 | 1/1 | Mainly republishes data and analyst forecasts from providers (S&P Global, Fiscal AI and others); no own rating or fair value. Very deep history: 10 to 40 years of financials on Pro. [1][2][3] |
| Koyfin | 1.5 | 0/2 | 0/1 | 0/2 | 0.75/1 | Data, charts and consensus estimates from providers; no own rating, fair value or written analysis. 10 years of financials on paid plans. [1][2] |
| Finviz | 1.3 | 0/2 | 0/1 | 0/2 | 0.5/1 | Screener and data from providers; no own rating, fair value or written analysis. [1] |
For stock pick services, depth is scored differently: Track record (live with a benchmark 1, live without benchmark 0.75, backtest only 0.25) + clarity of picks (written reasons 1, score or short note 0.5) + own analysts or model (1) + trial or refund (1, unknown 0.5): score = 1 + 4 x (points / 4).
| Service | Track record | Clarity | Own picks | Why |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Motley Fool Stock Advisor | 1/1 | 1/1 | 1/1 | Publishes a live record since 2002 against the S&P 500; each pick comes with a written report from its analysts. [1] |
| Seeking Alpha PRO | 0.5/1 | 1/1 | 1/1 | The PRO Quant Portfolio is built from Seeking Alpha's own Quant system and publishes a record since 30 May 2025 against the S&P 500 Equal Weight Index, but it is a hypothetical portfolio and the record is short; Top Analyst Ideas come with written articles. [1][2] |
| Seeking Alpha Quant Growth & Income | 0.25/1 | 0.5/1 | 1/1 | Built from Seeking Alpha's own Quant Ratings and Dividend Grades with published rules; it shows a record against the Vanguard High Dividend Yield Index, but only since 3 Jun 2026 and for a hypothetical portfolio. [1] |
| Alpha Picks | 1/1 | 1/1 | 1/1 | Publishes a live record since July 2022 against the S&P 500; each pick comes with a written article; picks come from Seeking Alpha's own Quant system. [1] |
| Zacks Premium | 1/1 | 0.5/1 | 1/1 | Publishes the Zacks Rank #1 record since 1988 against the S&P 500; picks are a rank list with short notes. [1] |
| InvestingPro | 0.75/1 | 0.5/1 | 1/1 | ProPicks AI shows returns since launch, but without the launch date or the S&P 500 return for the same period (the long figures are backtests); picks come with short AI notes. [1][2] |
Trial or refund comes from the checked facts on each tool page. Track record counts whether a record is published and how clearly, not how high the returns are.
Ease of use
Ease of use is the one sub-score that needs a person. It is our rating for how clear the layout is and how quickly a new investor finds their way. We keep it on the careful side, write down the reason for each tool, and update it when we test the tool.
See the scoring details
| Tool | Score | Label | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alpha Picks | 4.8 | Our rating | - |
| Delta | 4.8 | Our rating | - |
| Finviz | 4.4 | Our rating | - |
| getquin | 4.7 | Our rating | - |
| InvestingPro | 4.8 (4.7 for picks) | Our rating | 7 for ProPicks. |
| Koyfin | 4.4 | Our rating | - |
| Morningstar Investor | 4.5 | Our rating | - |
| Seeking Alpha | 4.7 | Our rating | - |
| Seeking Alpha PRO | 4.7 | Our rating | - |
| Simply Wall St | 4.5 | Our rating | - |
| Snowball Analytics | 4.6 | Our rating | - |
| TipRanks | 4.6 | Our rating | - |
| Yahoo Finance | 4.5 | Our rating | - |
| Kubera | 4.0 | Our rating | Simple, spreadsheet-like net worth view. Clean, but not built around stock research or dividends. |
| Motley Fool Stock Advisor | 4.4 | Our rating | Picks arrive as plain written reports with a short list each month, so there is little to learn. The members area has many sections. |
| Seeking Alpha Quant Growth & Income | 4.8 | Our rating | Same Seeking Alpha portfolio page and alerts as Alpha Picks: a short list of holdings and about two changes every two weeks, so there is little to learn. |
| Sharesight | 4.1 | Our rating | Reports look clear in public demos, but setting up trades, currencies and tax settings takes time. |
| Stock Analysis | 4.4 | Our rating | Stock pages we opened are clean and plain: one company per page, simple tables, little clutter. Fewer visual guides than the top-rated tools. |
| Stock Rover | 3.8 | Our rating | Public screenshots show spreadsheet-style tables with many columns and tabs. Powerful, but dense and dated for a new investor. |
| TradingView | 4.2 | Our rating | Free Basic chart is quick to open and the main actions are labelled, but the default screen has many toolbars and panels, which takes beginners time to learn. |
| TrendSpider | 3.6 | Our rating | Built for active traders. Demo videos show many automated chart tools and settings at once; there is a learning curve. |
| WallStreetZen | 4.3 | Our rating | Zen Score and stock pages explain points in plain words; layout is tidy. Some features sit behind upgrade prompts. |
| Zacks Premium | 3.7 | Our rating | Public pages are busy, with many lists, links and ads, and an older design. The Zacks Rank itself is simple to read. |
| Ziggma | 4.0 | Our rating | Portfolio scores are shown clearly in public screens, but some pages pack in many numbers. |
Official facts only
We only use facts from official pages, with the date we checked them. If an official page does not state a price, free plan, trial or market, we do not guess and we do not hide the tool; we say so on its page. A tool is left out of a job only when its official pages do not show the main feature for that job.
Free tools are not pushed down. A tool with a good free plan scores well on value for money.
Our testing and final say
Scores combine the published criteria on this page, based on facts from official pages, with our own testing of each tool. I also sign off the final order of every list.
Best for labels
A "Best for" label appears only where a tool clearly leads one area in that list: for example the only top score for ease of use or value for money, or a feature it is known for, such as fair value estimates.
Ties and partner tools
We earn a commission from some tools. When two tools show exactly the same score (to one decimal), our partner tools are listed first. Our partner tools are Seeking Alpha, InvestingPro, Simply Wall St and TipRanks. A tool with a lower shown score is never listed above one with a higher shown score. See how we make money.
This is not advice
Our rankings compare tool features and prices. They are general information, not personal investment advice.