Best Stock Screeners for Value Investors (2025) — GuruFocus, Finviz, Simply Wall St and More Compared

I've subscribed to most of the tools on this list at one point or another. A few I still use. Here's what I actually think of them — which ones are worth paying for, which ones are better for traders than value investors, and where each one falls flat.

GuruFocus — the deepest data, and the most overwhelming

If you're weighing up a GuruFocus alternative or deciding whether the subscription is justified, start with an honest description of what it actually is: it's the most data-rich value investing platform available. No serious argument there. That's also why it's hard to recommend to everyone.

The core appeal is the guru portfolio tracking. GuruFocus pulls 13F filings each quarter and shows you exactly what Buffett, Seth Klarman, Mohnish Pabrai, and dozens of other well-known investors bought, sold, or added to. You see position size, average cost, and portfolio weight. For investors who want to see where the money is actually going, this is genuinely useful data — and you won't find it presented this cleanly elsewhere.

The valuation metrics are also comprehensive. GuruFocus calculates the Graham Number, the Peter Lynch value, a DCF intrinsic value, and a proprietary "GF Value" metric that blends historical multiples with growth projections. Financial statements go back 10 or more years. You can spend an hour on a single stock page without running out of things to look at.

That's the problem. The interface was clearly designed on the assumption that more data always means more value. It shows. A typical stock page has more modules, charts, and nested tables than most investors will work through in a sitting, and the navigation takes real time to learn. There's also a meaningful limitation for strict Graham-style investors: some valuation metrics blend projected data from analyst consensus estimates alongside reported figures, rather than sticking purely to what was filed with the SEC. If you only trust reported numbers, you'll need to be selective about which metrics you use.

Pricing sits around $499/year for the premium tier. There's a free version, but most of the useful features are behind the paywall. It's the most expensive tool in this comparison by a clear margin.

Worth it if you're an experienced value investor who actively follows guru portfolios and wants maximum data density. If you want a cleaner screener focused on the core fundamentals, the depth here quickly becomes noise rather than signal.

Simply Wall St — clean design, forecasts baked into the valuation

People often look for a Simply Wall St alternative after subscribing and realising the valuation numbers aren't quite what they expected. That's the main thing to understand before signing up.

The interface is excellent — genuinely one of the better-looking investing tools out there. The snowflake diagram rates each stock across five axes: value, future performance, past performance, financial health, and dividends. It gives you an instant read on a stock. Coverage is international, which puts it ahead of several US-only tools. For a quick health check on a company you're already aware of, it works well.

The issue for fundamentals-first investors is that Simply Wall St's intrinsic value calculation relies heavily on a DCF model built from analyst consensus forecasts. It's not calculating value from reported earnings and book value — it's projecting forward from what analysts expect the company to earn. The number looks precise, but it's carrying significant assumptions underneath. If the analyst community is wrong about a sector's growth prospects (and they often are), the "intrinsic value" figure moves with them.

This also shows up in the scoring: the "future performance" axis rewards companies that analysts expect to grow fast, not necessarily companies trading at a discount to their fundamental worth today. For momentum or growth investing, that's fine. For value investing in the Graham tradition, it's a real mismatch.

Pricing runs around $25/month or roughly $200/year. The free tier is limited. For investors who want the polished interface and don't mind the blend of reported and estimated data, it's a reasonable subscription — just go in knowing what the valuation numbers are actually based on.

Stockopedia — rigorous quant scoring, US coverage is an afterthought

Stockopedia deserves more attention in US value investing circles than it gets. It's usually overlooked because it was built with UK and European investors in mind, and the US coverage shows that. But the underlying methodology is one of the more rigorous quantitative approaches available, and if you're looking for a Stockopedia alternative because of coverage gaps, it's worth at least understanding what you'd be replacing.

The StockRank system scores each stock across three composites: quality, value, and momentum. The quality score includes the Piotroski F-Score, Altman Z-Score, and profitability metrics. The value score pulls on P/E, P/B, EV/EBITDA, and price-to-free cash flow. Done properly, from filed financial data rather than estimates — which matters for the Piotroski calculation specifically. The composite ranking gives you a systematic, consistent way to compare stocks across these dimensions without having to manually check each metric.

The limitations are real. US stock coverage exists but feels clearly secondary — the editorial content, community, and data depth is oriented around UK-listed companies. The interface is busy and takes time to navigate. At around £240/year (roughly $300), it's mid-range on price without the visual polish that might justify it at that level.

A serious option if you invest in UK or European equities, or want a systematic quantitative ranking system and are comfortable paying for it. As a pure US-stock value screener, cheaper alternatives cover the same core metrics more cleanly.

Finviz — the best free screener, and it runs out of road fast

Nothing beats Finviz at the free tier for raw screening speed. If you want a Finviz alternative, the honest starting point is: alternative for what, exactly? Because as a quick, broad first filter, Finviz is very good and it's free.

The filter set covers P/E, P/B, debt/equity, dividend yield, earnings growth, insider ownership, country, sector, market cap, and more. Results load fast. The heatmap gives you a useful sector-level visual. For cutting through several thousand stocks to a manageable shortlist, it does the job quickly and without an account.

The ceiling is the problem for value investing. There's no Graham Number. No Piotroski F-Score. No financial statements. No multi-year metric history — just the current figure. The data stops at the basics: P/E, P/B, EPS, revenue, short float. Enough to filter, not enough to analyse.

Finviz Elite, the paid version, costs $39.50/month — which is a lot for what it adds. Real-time quotes, some backtesting, a few extra filters. It doesn't address the fundamental gap: you still won't find the Graham Number, the Piotroski F-Score, or multi-year fundamental trend data. For a value investor, that's the whole point.

Use Finviz as a first pass — screen by P/B below 1.5, P/E below 15, US-listed, profitable — and take the shortlist into something with more depth. As a standalone research platform for value investing, it runs out of road quickly. Don't pay $474/year for Elite when you'll still need a second tool.

TradingView — the best charts in the business, thin fundamentals

Searching for a TradingView alternative for fundamental screening is almost always the right instinct: TradingView is a charting platform, and its screener reflects that.

For technical analysis there is no better tool. The chart quality, indicator library, drawing tools, and the ability to publish and share chart ideas — nothing else comes close. If charting is part of your process, or you want to add a technical view to a fundamentals-first approach, TradingView is the obvious choice and there's no real competition for it.

The fundamental screener works, but it feels like an add-on. You can filter by P/E, P/B, EPS, revenue growth, and debt, which is more than Yahoo Finance offers. But there's no Graham Number, no Piotroski F-Score, no quality scoring, no multi-year financial statement view. The fundamental data is thin, and the paid plan upgrades are focused entirely on charting — more indicators, more layouts, faster data. They don't add depth to the screener.

Pricing is free for the basic plan, with paid tiers from $14.95/month. If you're a technical trader who occasionally wants to cross-check a fundamental ratio, TradingView covers it. If you find stocks by screening on value metrics and then dig into the financials, TradingView is not the right primary tool — use it for charts after you've done the fundamental work elsewhere.

Yahoo Finance — useful for price data, not for serious screening

Almost everyone starts here. The brand recognition is enormous, the price data is reliable, and the news coverage is broad. For checking a price or reading recent earnings headlines, it's perfectly fine.

The screener is where it falls short. Filter combinations are limited. There's no Graham Number, no Piotroski F-Score, no quality scoring. The fundamental data in the screener sticks to surface-level metrics — P/E, P/B, revenue, market cap, dividend yield — and the experience of building a multi-filter screen is clunky compared to dedicated tools.

Most investors outgrow Yahoo Finance as a screener quickly once they start doing proper value investing research. It's a useful reference. It isn't a value investing platform, and there's no premium version that changes that.

How they compare — side by side

StockPik — what I built, and why

I built StockPik because I couldn't find a screener that did the specific things I needed without either overwhelming me with data I'd never use, mixing analyst estimates into what should be reported-data calculations, or charging $400+ a year for it.

The goal was narrow: a screener built entirely for value investing fundamentals, using only reported data, priced for individual investors rather than institutions.

Every figure in StockPik comes from SEC EDGAR filings — not analyst forecasts, not consensus estimates, not projected earnings. If the company hasn't filed it, we don't show it. That matters particularly for the Graham Number calculation: ours uses reported EPS and reported book value per share from the actual SEC filings. No DCF projection on top, no adjustments for "normalised" earnings.

The screeners cover the metrics that matter for Graham-style value investing:

• Graham Number with margin of safety — screen for stocks trading below their Graham Number using our margin of safety screener
• Piotroski F-Score — calculated from SEC filings across all nine criteria. See the current high-scorers in the live Piotroski F-Score screener
• Price-to-book screener — filter for stocks trading below book value
• Value Score — a composite that blends valuation and financial quality signals
• Financial statements — income statement, balance sheet, and cash flow from EDGAR, presented cleanly

What StockPik doesn't do: international stocks (US-listed only), technical analysis, guru portfolio tracking. If you want to follow what Buffett is buying from 13F filings, use GuruFocus — it does that better than anyone. StockPik has no ambition to replicate it.

On price: the free tier covers basic screening with no account required. The premium plan is $19/month or $149/year — the cheapest full-featured option in this comparison by a clear margin. If the screener covers your workflow, there's no reason to pay three times more for features you won't use. Start with a free 7-day trial and run through the screens first.

Frequently asked questions