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 are separated in this screen.
How to use this list
Use the Value and Momentum fields together to distinguish cheapness from a simultaneous change in price-based evidence. The combination is descriptive and does not prove that a re-rating is underway. 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?
This daily ranking makes changes in covered Value evidence visible by snapshot. It does not promise a value premium or infer a regime turn from the ranking alone.