What the Value score actually compares
The AIQ Value sub-score measures price attractiveness relative to fundamentals — earnings, revenue, and free cash flow — normalized against sector peers rather than the whole market. That peer normalization is the important design choice: a bank at 11x earnings and a software company at 28x can both score well if each is cheap for its sector's economics. Absolute-multiple screens systematically load up on structurally cheap sectors; this one doesn't.
The other structural defense in this ranking is the composite context shown alongside: the classic failure mode of value screens is the value trap — statistically cheap because the business is deteriorating. Displaying Quality and Momentum beside the Value score makes the distinction visible line by line: cheap-and-durable reads very differently from cheap-and-decaying, and both will appear here.
How to use this list
The strongest historical profile on a list like this is cheapness plus a catalyst — improving momentum on an attractively valued name suggests the market has begun re-rating it. Names ranking high on Value with flat momentum are patience trades; names high on Value with improving momentum are re-ratings in progress. The Δ1d column and the risers panel above surface the second group daily.
FAQ
Why does the list disagree with famous value-investor holdings?
This is a quantitative sector-relative ranking updated daily, not a concentrated judgment portfolio. It will surface statistically cheap names an active manager would reject on business grounds — the Quality column is the fastest way to apply that filter yourself.
Value has underperformed for years — why rank it at all?
The value premium is cyclical, and its leadership phases have historically arrived abruptly around rate and regime turns. A daily ranking exists precisely so the rotation is visible when it starts, rather than in quarter-delayed fund letters.