No Spin. Just Signal.

How We Evaluate Stock Advisory Services

A framework for analysis, not a formula for rankings. We explain exactly how we assess services—so you can apply the same thinking yourself.

Most review sites assign star ratings based on criteria they never explain. You get a score without understanding how it was calculated or whether the methodology makes sense.

We take a different approach. We evaluate services across specific dimensions, explain our reasoning, and acknowledge the limitations of our analysis. Our goal isn't to tell you what to buy—it's to give you a framework for making your own informed decision.

The Five Dimensions of Evaluation

We assess every service across five dimensions. No dimension is more important than another—their relative importance depends on your specific situation and goals.

1. Methodology Transparency

Can you understand why they recommend what they recommend?

A service's methodology is its intellectual core. We ask:

  • Is the investment philosophy clearly articulated?
  • Are selection criteria specific and verifiable?
  • Can you learn to think like they think?
  • Do they explain individual recommendations, or just announce them?

Why this matters: Understanding methodology is the only way to maintain conviction during drawdowns. If you don't know why you own something, you'll sell it at exactly the wrong time.

Red flags: Vague appeals to "expert analysis," black-box systems, recommendations without rationale, reluctance to explain failures.

2. Track Record Integrity

Can claims be verified, and are failures acknowledged?

Every service claims strong returns. We evaluate:

  • Are all recommendations shown, including losers?
  • Are entry dates documented and verifiable?
  • Is the return calculation methodology clear?
  • Are results audited or independently verified?

Why this matters: Cherry-picked returns are worthless. The services worth using are those confident enough to show their failures alongside their successes.

Red flags: Selective time frames, retroactive removal of underperformers, "average return per pick" instead of portfolio-weighted returns, comparison to inappropriate benchmarks.

3. Risk Framework

How do they think about position sizing, portfolio construction, and sell discipline?

Stock selection is only half the equation. We examine:

  • Is there guidance on position sizing?
  • Are conviction levels or tiers provided?
  • Is there a clear sell discipline?
  • Is portfolio-level risk addressed?

Why this matters: In a market where the spread between winners and losers exceeds 600 percentage points, how you size positions matters as much as which positions you take.

Red flags: No position sizing guidance, no sell discipline, recommendations in isolation from portfolio context, unclear conviction signals.

4. Current Market Applicability

Is the methodology suited to current conditions?

Past performance happened in past conditions. We assess:

  • How has the approach performed in similar market environments?
  • Is the methodology adaptive to changing conditions?
  • Are current risks and opportunities addressed?
  • Does the approach account for concentration, sector dynamics, macro factors?

Why this matters in 2026: With the top 10 stocks representing 43% of the S&P 500, manufacturing contracting while services expand, and the Fed internally divided on policy—methodology matters more than historical returns.

Red flags: Evergreen recommendations unchanged across market regimes, no acknowledgment of current conditions, methodology that worked in different environments.

5. Value Proposition Clarity

Who is this service actually for, and is the cost justified?

Different services serve different investors. We evaluate:

  • Is the target investor clearly defined?
  • What portfolio size is needed for the cost to make sense?
  • What time commitment is required?
  • Are expectations realistic and clearly set?

Why this matters: A $200/year service needs to generate $200 in additional returns to break even. For a $50,000 portfolio, that's a 0.4% edge—achievable, but only if you'll actually use the service effectively.

Red flags: "For all investors" positioning, unrealistic return expectations, hidden costs, unclear time requirements.

What We Don't Do

We Don't Assign Star Ratings

Star ratings are reductive. They collapse complex trade-offs into a single number that obscures more than it reveals. A service that's excellent for aggressive growth investors might be terrible for conservative income seekers. A single rating can't capture that.

We Don't Rank Services Definitively

"Best" depends on context. We analyze services individually and comparatively, but we don't produce ranked lists. The best service for you depends on your goals, risk tolerance, time horizon, and temperament.

We Don't Predict Returns

Anyone claiming to know how a service will perform next year is selling you something. We assess methodology and process, not outcomes. Good processes tend to produce good outcomes over time, but there are no guarantees.

We Don't Hide Uncertainty

Our evaluations involve judgment calls. We're explicit about our reasoning and acknowledge when we could be wrong. Intellectual honesty requires admitting what we don't know.

Our Sources

Every factual claim in our analysis is sourced from authoritative providers:

Market Data

  • Performance data: Slickcharts, verified against service disclosures
  • Sector analysis: Finviz, verified against index providers
  • Sentiment: AAII Sentiment Survey

Economic Data

  • Employment: Bureau of Labor Statistics
  • Inflation: Bureau of Labor Statistics (CPI)
  • Manufacturing/Services: Institute for Supply Management (PMI)
  • Credit: FRED (St. Louis Fed) for high-yield spreads
  • Interest rates: U.S. Treasury, Federal Reserve

Company & Service Data

  • SEC filings: EDGAR database for parent company financials
  • Service disclosures: Official performance documentation
  • Methodology: Published materials, subscriber access

Academic Research

  • Factor investing: NBER, peer-reviewed journals
  • Behavioral finance: Academic research on investor behavior
  • Market efficiency: Studies on active vs. passive performance

Applying This Framework Yourself

You don't need us to evaluate advisory services. Here's how to apply this framework independently:

Before Subscribing

  1. Read everything the service publishes about their methodology. If it's vague or hidden, that tells you something.
  2. Find their track record disclosures. Look for complete data, not highlights.
  3. Ask: does this approach make sense for current conditions? Not just "has it worked" but "will it work now?"
  4. Calculate the break-even: at your portfolio size, what return improvement justifies the cost?
  5. Be honest about your temperament: will you actually follow through, or will you second-guess every recommendation?

After Subscribing

  1. Track your actual results—not the service's claimed results. Your returns depend on your execution.
  2. Evaluate after a full year. Shorter periods are noise.
  3. Assess whether you're learning or just following. The best outcome is that you become a better investor.
  4. Be willing to cancel if it's not working. Sunk costs are sunk.

Limitations of Our Analysis

Our evaluations are informed opinions, not objective truth. We acknowledge:

  • We can't predict future performance of any service
  • Our assessment of "current market applicability" involves judgment
  • We have limited visibility into proprietary methodologies
  • Our perspective is shaped by our own investment philosophy
  • Market conditions change faster than content can be updated

Use our analysis as one input among many. Do your own due diligence. Trust your own judgment. We're here to inform your thinking, not replace it.