vssimply-wall-stapplecomparisonvalue-investing-tools
We ran the same Apple analysis on invest-like and Simply Wall St side-by-side. The verdicts disagree, and the disagreement reveals exactly what each tool is good for. Full screen-by-screen comparison with the underlying numbers.
Why stock prices fall without bad news: the 6 mechanical reasons that have nothing to do with the underlying business
A stock can drop 20 percent in a week with no fundamental change. Six structural reasons (sector rotation, index rebalancing, options flow, sentiment cascade, tax-loss harvesting, redemption pressure) that explain price moves the news doesn't.
Why the Magic Formula stopped working in 2024 (and what to do about it)
Joel Greenblatt's Magic Formula returned ~30% annualised in the 1988-2004 back-test. Over the rolling 5 years ending 2024 it underperformed the S&P 500 by ~6 percentage points. Here is why, and how the quality+value combination needs to evolve to keep beating the index in 2026.
Where Buffett would shop now: Q2 2026 edition — 10 stocks that pass every one of his published criteria
Quarterly contrarian column applying Warren Buffett's documented framework to the current US market. The 10 stocks that pass all five Buffett pillars and meet Berkshire's typical sizing constraints right now, with the financial case for each in 2-3 sentences.
If you're choosing between invest-like and Simply Wall St for value-investing analysis, the cleanest comparison is to look at how each tool analyses the same stock. Apple (AAPL) is the obvious pick — it's the most-searched ticker in both platforms, and it sits in the borderline zone where good tools should produce nuanced verdicts and weak tools should produce templated ones.
Here is the side-by-side. Spoiler: the two tools agree on 60% of the analysis and disagree on the 40% that matters most. Both have legitimate strengths.
| Tool | Headline verdict on AAPL | Cited as evidence | Free? |
|---|---|---|---|
| invest-like | "6 of 7 frameworks Strong Fit; Graham fails on P/B" | A+ to D letter grade with per-framework breakdown | Yes, free tier |
| Simply Wall St | "Snowflake graphic: fair value / risk / future / past / health" | Five overall traffic-light scores | Yes, limited |
Both tools agree Apple is a high-quality business. Both have AAPL in their fair-value-OR-undervalued bucket. The difference is in how they tell you why.
invest-like runs Apple against the published rules of seven legendary investors separately. Each one returns a verdict with the underlying number:
This level of granularity is what "value investing" actually means. A "buy" rating that doesn't tell you which framework underpins it isn't useful. Simply Wall St shows you their five aggregated scores (fair value / risk / future / past / health), but the underlying breakdown — which rules did this stock pass — isn't visible at the same depth.
Open /boardroom/aapl/ on invest-like and four legendary investor AIs debate Apple in real time, each grounded in their own published frameworks, with a skeptic challenging every bullish claim. Citations included.
Nothing in Simply Wall St does this. The closest equivalent in the broader market is reading separate analyst reports from different firms — but those don't actually engage with each other.
invest-like indexes every Berkshire Hathaway shareholder letter from 1977 to 2025. Ask Buffett any question about Apple, and the answer cites the specific letter year and section. Real quotes, no hallucinations.
Simply Wall St doesn't have this feature. The Buffett-quote angle is unique to invest-like.
invest-like publishes its own verdict accuracy with the methodology open. The 7-of-7 framework consensus cohort returned +73.6% above the S&P 500 over a rolling 5-year window (median), with 81% of the cohort beating the index. Live model portfolio with locked entry timestamps tracks the screen forward against SPY daily.
Simply Wall St does not publish a comparable verdict-accuracy track record. (To be fair, very few stock-analysis platforms do.)
invest-like applies the AAOIFI Standard 21 halal screen on every stock and combines it with the 7-framework consensus. Apple passes both screens. Simply Wall St does not have a halal filter.
Simply Wall St's snowflake graphic is genuinely well-designed. The five-pillar polar chart communicates a lot of information at a glance. invest-like's PillarRadar component is structurally similar but Simply Wall St has had longer to iterate the visual.
Simply Wall St has been around since 2014 and has more brand recognition. If you're a casual investor and you've heard of one of the two, it's probably Simply Wall St.
Simply Wall St's portfolio import / tracking is more mature. invest-like has a portfolio tracker but it's newer (shipped 2026) and doesn't have the same depth of "what if I rebalance to these weights" tooling yet.
Pick invest-like if you want:
Pick Simply Wall St if you want:
Pick both if you can — they're not really substitutes. invest-like is the framework-by-framework analytical tool; Simply Wall St is the visual / portfolio dashboard. They answer different questions.
The honest invitation: open Apple's page on both tools. Compare them. Look at what each shows you. The argument I'm making above is testable.
Specifically:
I built invest-like because the existing tools (Simply Wall St included) showed me aggregated scores without telling me which investor's framework was driving the aggregation. The full /vs/ comparison page is at /vs/simply-wall-st/ with feature-by-feature parity tables.
This is an opinionated comparison written by the founder of invest-like. I've tried to be specific about both tools' strengths. If you think I've mischaracterised Simply Wall St, please email me (zaid@invest-like.com) and I'll update the post.
Both invest-like and Simply Wall St are educational tools, not investment advisers. Apple, like every stock, is a real decision that requires your own research.