Launching today
Stockoscope
Analyze 3,000+ US stocks across five dimensions
5 followers
Analyze 3,000+ US stocks across five dimensions
5 followers
Stockoscope analyzes 3,000+ US stocks across five dimensions: Quality, Peers, Valuation, Analyst Sentiment, and Holdings. What's different: it shows its work. Every score reveals how it was built, and you set the weights, adjust the valuation assumptions, and build your own Quality, Value, and Dividend strategies. Screen the whole market visually with 40+ filters and 17 preset screens, then go deep on any stock. Free to start, no card, then Pro at $15/mo. A research tool, not advice.
Hi everyone, Nav here, the maker.
I spent about two decades as a veterinary epidemiologist, working with disease-surveillance data. The job teaches you one habit above all others: no single test is ever conclusive, so you triangulate. You line up several independent, imperfect signals and watch where they agree and where they fight. The picture that survives that cross-check is the one you trust.
A few years ago I started applying the same habit to my own investing, and I could not find a tool that worked the way I think. Most either hand you a single score with no way to see inside it, or bury you in raw data with no structure. So I built Stockoscope.
It looks at every stock through five dimensions: Quality, Peers, Valuation, Analyst Sentiment, and Holdings. The point is never any one score, it is how they line up. A cheap stock that is also low quality and being sold by insiders is a very different story from a cheap stock that is high quality and being bought.
The part I am most proud of: you set the weights. The defaults are a starting point, not a recommendation. You can re-weight the quality pillars, move every filter, change the valuation assumptions, and build your own Quality, Value, and Dividend strategies. You can also screen the whole market visually and then go deep on any name. Every score shows its work, so you can see why it landed where it did, and then disagree with it.
Honest limitations. It is US only for now, the S&P 1500 plus Russell 3000, more than 3,000 stocks. I cut international to get the data quality right rather than spread thin, and I would rather cover one universe well than five badly. And to be clear, this is a research tool, not advice. Everything it surfaces is a candidate for your own work.
On pricing: there is a free plan that stays free, no card, with three full 5D deep-dives a month plus unlimited company news and the simple screener. Pro is one plan, $15/mo or $150/yr, and every account starts with a free Pro trial so you can try everything first. If you start an annual plan before August 31 there is a Founding rate, $99/yr locked for three years. I would genuinely love your feedback, especially the critical kind. Ask me anything.
Love the transparency on how each score is built, that's a huge trust factor. One thing I'd love to see is a "compare side by side" mode where you can stack two or three stocks and see exactly which inputs are driving the score differences, kind of like a diff view. Would make it way easier to decide between similar names without flipping back and forth.
@remziavcu54671
Thank you, that means a lot. Transparency is the whole reason I built it this way, so it's great to hear it lands.
I really like the side by side idea. The closest thing today is the Peers Comparison page, which stacks a selected stock against its sector and industry peers across 40 metrics, but it isn't the direct two or three way comparison you're describing. That's something we can definitely build, and the most natural path would be to let you pick the specific stocks to line up right there in the peer comparison view.
Thanks for taking the time to write this up, and for the kind words. Constructive feedback like this is exactly what helps shape where it goes next.
How granular does the weight adjustment get on each dimension, like can I zero out analyst sentiment entirely or am I always locked into some minimum across all five?
The ability to tweak the weights and see exactly how each score is calculated is genuinely refreshing. Most screeners hand you a black box, so this feels closer to building my own research workflow than using some canned tool.