Meta Platforms (META) through 7 value-investing frameworks: where Buffett, Graham, Lynch and Greenblatt agree (and disagree)

Meta Platforms is the framework's purest "owner-earnings" question. Family of Apps (Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Threads) prints money at hyperscaler-class margins. Reality Labs has burned roughly $60 billion cumulatively since the 2021 rebrand and reported a $17.7 billion operating loss in FY2024 alone. Every framework that reads consolidated GAAP earnings underweights the Family of Apps cash machine because the Reality Labs burn drags the consolidated number. Every framework willing to read segment economics rates Meta meaningfully higher.

The framework question on META is whether Buffett's "owner earnings" concept, applied properly to a company explicitly running a high-conviction long-duration loss-making segment, changes the verdict. We ran META through all seven named-investor frameworks on invest-like.com in parallel and printed the scores side by side. Every number below is anchored to Meta's 2024 10-K (filed 31 January 2025) and trailing FY2025 earnings releases, the same scores that power /buffett/meta/ and every public API response for ticker META.

TL;DR, META on all 7 frameworks

Framework	Score	Grade	Verdict	Criteria met
Greenblatt (Magic Formula)	87	B	yes	4 / 5
Fisher (growth quality)	86	A	yes	9 / 10
Lynch (GARP)	84	A	yes	6 / 6
Munger (mental models)	82	A	yes	10 / 11
Buffett (moat + quality)	80	B	yes	7 / 9
Smith (Fundsmith)	79	B	yes	10 / 12
Graham (defensive)	76	B	yes	4 / 7

Cross-framework average: 82.0 out of 100. Minimum score: 76 (Graham). All seven scores clear the 60 pass-threshold the invest-like data study uses, which means META is one of the 47 US-listed stocks that pass all 7 value-investing frameworks at a B-minus or better, alongside Alphabet, NVIDIA and Visa. Source: the cross-framework consensus study, data snapshot 26 May 2026.

Headline numbers that drive every framework, sourced from Meta's 2024 10-K (filed 31 January 2025) and FY2025 trailing earnings releases:

• Price: $618.40. Market cap: $1.56 trillion.
• ROIC trailing twelve months: 28.4%. Five-year average ROIC: 22.1%.
• Gross margin: 81.7%. Operating margin: 42.2%. Net margin: 37.9%.
• P/E TTM: 24.6. P/B: 8.91. EV/EBIT: 20.1.
• PEG ratio: 0.71.
• Five-year revenue CAGR: 15.8%. Five-year EPS CAGR: 19.3%.
• Debt to equity: 0.27. Current ratio: 2.74. Net debt to EBITDA: -0.38 (net cash).
• Owner-earnings yield: 4.84%. Earnings yield: 4.07%.
• Dividend yield: 0.32% (initiated February 2024). Share count CAGR five-year: -1.1%.
• AAOIFI halal status: compliant. Interest-bearing debt to market cap: 2.61%.

Family of Apps operating income in FY2024: $87.1 billion at a 55% segment margin. Reality Labs operating loss FY2024: $17.7 billion. Consolidated operating income: $69.4 billion. Read on Family of Apps alone, Meta is the highest-margin business in mega-cap. The framework debate hinges on which number each scorer reads.

The rest of this post walks through each framework, explains why it scored META the way it did, and surfaces where the seven authors agree and where they part ways.

Why Meta is the canon's most explicit owner-earnings test

Meta's 2024 10-K reported $164.5 billion in revenue (up 21.9% year-over-year), $69.4 billion in operating income (a 42.2% consolidated operating margin), and $62.4 billion in net income. The segment breakdown is the framework story: Family of Apps generated $162.4 billion in revenue at a $87.1 billion operating profit (55% segment margin); Reality Labs generated $2.1 billion in revenue with a $17.7 billion operating loss. The Family of Apps segment, run as a standalone business, would be the most profitable advertising company in history.

The framework debate falls out of one observation: Buffett's "owner earnings" concept (defined in his 1986 letter as reported earnings adjusted for the cash a business genuinely throws off to owners after maintenance capex) was built for exactly this kind of business. Reality Labs spending is, by Mark Zuckerberg's own description in every earnings call, deliberate long-duration capital investment with no expectation of near-term return. The investor question is whether to treat that $17.7 billion as a real expense (the GAAP view, which catches Meta at consolidated 42% margins instead of Family of Apps' 55%) or as discretionary capital allocation that owner-earnings-style accounting would back out.

Buffett's own writing on this question is consistent: he treats reported earnings as the starting point but adjusts for what he reads as discretionary versus maintenance spend. Applied honestly to Meta, the framework reads Reality Labs as discretionary capital allocation that compresses the multiple but does not compress the underlying business quality. That distinction drives the cross-framework profile below.

Buffett-fit: 80 out of 100, verdict yes

The invest-like Buffett scorer marks META as 7 of 9 criteria passing. The two fails are:

• Five-year revenue CAGR 15.8% against the 8% floor: pass by wide margin.
• Owner-earnings yield 4.84% against the 5% floor: fail by 0.16 percentage points, the narrowest miss in this batch.
• Five-year ROE volatility: fail by 1 point on the smoothness criterion because FY2022 reported earnings dropped 41% before rebounding.

What passes:

• ROIC of 28.4% blows past the 15% minimum, second-highest after AAPL in the mega-cap cohort.
• Gross margin of 81.7% is the highest in mega-cap, beating MSFT (69.4%) and AAPL (47.9%).
• Five-year profitability: yes, despite FY2022 dip.
• Net cash position: trivially passes.
• Operating margin 42.2% deep above the 15% Buffett floor.
• FCF to net income at 0.92 clears the 0.80 cash-quality floor cleanly.
• Debt to equity at 0.27 clears the 1.0 ceiling.

What this score means in plain English: the framework reads Meta as a wonderful business at a defensible multiple, with the Reality Labs burn as the single drag. The Buffett Brain breaks the overall score into five pillars: moat 90, durability 78, management 76, valuation 76, financial health 84. The 90/100 moat score is the highest of any mega-cap in this batch, reflecting the network effects across Family of Apps. The 78/100 durability pillar carries the Reality Labs uncertainty.

The Buffett scorer's headline reads "Family of Apps generates owner earnings at a 90%+ rate; Reality Labs is discretionary capital allocation that the framework treats as expense but the spirit of owner-earnings would treat as optional reinvestment." That is the framework speaking to the segment-mix question directly.

Graham: 76 out of 100, verdict yes

Graham fails META on the strict defensive screen but passes more cleanly than any mega-cap except GOOGL. On the three classic defensive lines:

• P/E of 24.6 against the 15.0 Graham ceiling: fail (by 9 points).
• P/B of 8.91 against the 1.5 Graham ceiling: fail.
• Earnings yield of 4.07% against the 7% Graham floor: fail (by 3 points).

Four of the seven criteria pass: five years of unbroken profitability, the structural size criterion, the dividend record (initiated February 2024), and the strongest current ratio (2.74) in mega-cap. Debt to equity at 0.27 is well below the 1.0 ceiling.

The 4-of-7 pass count drives the 76 score. The Graham scorer prints "Meta clears the structural half of Graham's defensive test but fails the valuation half by the smallest absolute margin among mega-cap big tech other than GOOGL." A pure five-rule Graham defensive screen would still reject META on the multiple alone; the invest-like implementation rewards Meta for the dividend initiation in February 2024 and the conservative balance sheet.

Fisher: 86 out of 100, verdict yes

Phil Fisher's "fifteen points" framework rates META the highest of any framework. The invest-like Fisher scorer tests for ten things and META passes 9 of them.

• Gross margin 81.7% against 50%: pass deeply.
• Revenue CAGR 15.8% against 10%: pass.
• EPS CAGR 19.3% outpacing revenue CAGR 15.8% by 3.5 points: pass (operational leverage signal).
• ROIC 28.4% against 15%: pass.
• Operating margin 42.2%, net margin 37.9%, both deep above floors.
• Net cash, FCF/NI 0.92, share count shrinking 1.1%/yr.
• P/E 24.6 against the 35 ceiling: pass comfortably.

The one fail is the 5-year revenue smoothness criterion: FY2022 revenue dipped 1.1% year-over-year (the first revenue decline in the company's history) before rebounding to 23% growth in FY2023 and 22% in FY2024. Fisher would have noted the dip but treated the rebound as the more important signal. The framework deducts 5 points for the volatility but lands at 86, the highest Fisher score in mega-cap.

Fisher's "scuttlebutt" research would have noted what the 10-K shows: pricing power in advertising recovered fully after the 2022 Apple App Tracking Transparency shock, Reels monetisation closed the revenue gap to feed ads, and Threads gained 320 million users in 18 months without material monetisation drag. The 86 score reflects Fisher's framework reading Meta as a textbook compounder with one volatility year that has been resolved.

Lynch: 84 out of 100, verdict yes (all 6 criteria pass)

Lynch's GARP framework gives Meta the cleanest possible read: 6 of 6 Lynch criteria pass.

• PEG of 0.71 against the 1.0 Lynch ceiling: pass (the lowest PEG of any mega-cap in this batch).
• EPS CAGR 19.3% against the 15% growth floor: pass.
• Revenue CAGR 15.8% against the 10% revenue floor: pass.
• Positive net margin 37.9%: pass.
• Manageable debt (D/E 0.27): pass.
• Positive free cash flow ($57.2 billion in FY2024): pass.

This is the only stock in the mega-cap series to pass all six Lynch criteria. The structural size penalty Lynch readers will recognise (META at $1.56 trillion is well outside the mid-cap "sweet spot") is partially offset by the PEG, which at 0.71 is comfortably under 1.0 and reflects the unusual combination of mega-cap scale with double-digit revenue growth and a sub-25 multiple.

The 84 score is the highest Lynch reading in mega-cap. AAPL fails Lynch on PEG (1.25). MSFT passes 5 of 6. NVDA passes but at a PEG (1.31) that fails the cleanest Lynch read. GOOGL passes 5 of 6 with size penalty. META is the only one where every line-item criterion passes.

Greenblatt (Magic Formula): 87 out of 100, verdict yes

Joel Greenblatt's Magic Formula passes Meta on 4 of 5 line-item criteria, tied with GOOGL for the cleanest Magic Formula read in mega-cap.

• ROIC of 28.4% against the 25% floor: pass.
• Gross margin of 81.7% against the 30% floor: pass deeply.
• EBIT/EV yield of 4.97% against the 10% floor: fail.
• EV/EBIT of 20.1 against the 12 ceiling: fail.
• Earnings yield of 4.07% against the 6% floor: fail.

By rank-based Magic Formula scoring, META's ROIC ranks in the top 6-8% of the 6,621-stock apples-to-apples cohort, and the earnings-yield rank lands in the third quintile. Combined, the rank-based formula puts META inside the top 12-15% in most snapshots, which is enough to qualify for the formula's top decile. The 87 score reflects the quality dominance with credit for the multiple being the second-lowest among mega-cap big tech (behind GOOGL).

The Magic Formula verdict on META is consistent with the broader cross-framework read: high-quality business at a multiple Greenblatt's framework treats as inside its tolerance for the quality tier.

Munger: 82 out of 100, verdict yes

Munger's mental-models filter scores Meta 82, the third-highest framework reading. META passes 10 of 11 Munger criteria:

• ROIC 28.4% against 18%, 5-year ROIC 22.1% against 15%: both pass deeply.
• Gross margin 81.7% against 40%, operating margin 42.2% against 18%, net margin 37.9% against 12%: every quality test clears its floor by wide margins.
• 5y ROE 25.8% against 15%: pass.
• Net cash position against 1.5x ceiling: pass.
• Share count shrinking 1.1%/yr and EPS CAGR 19.3% against 8%: both pass.
• P/E 24.6 against 30: pass.

The one fail is management score in the qualitative cache (74/100), which the Munger scorer reads as solid but not exceptional given the Reality Labs capital-allocation question and the long-running concerns about the dual-class voting structure. Munger himself was historically critical of Facebook's governance (specifically the Zuckerberg supervoting structure); the framework signal lines up with that historical lay reading at the management criterion level only.

The 82 score reflects a clean Munger fit on quality and price with the governance question as the single deduction. Munger's "willing to pay up for quality" principle does not need to be invoked because META at 24.6x is comfortably under the 30 ceiling.

T. Smith (Fundsmith): 79 out of 100, verdict yes

Terry Smith's Fundsmith framework is the strictest of the three "quality compounder" tests. It uses a 20% ROCE floor, a 45% gross margin floor, a 95% FCF-to-net-income floor, and a P/E ceiling of 35.

META passes 10 of 12 criteria:

• ROCE 28.4% against 20%: pass.
• Gross margin 81.7% against 45%, operating margin 42.2% against 20%, net margin 37.9% against 15%: every margin test passes deeply.
• 5y ROCE 22.1% against 18%, 5y ROE 25.8% against 18%: sustained quality, pass.
• Net cash position: pass.
• Revenue CAGR 15.8% against 7%, EPS CAGR 19.3% against 10%: growth passes by wide margins.
• Share count shrinking 1.1%/yr: pass.
• P/E 24.6 against 35: pass.
• FCF / NI 0.92 against the strict 0.95 floor: fail (by 0.03).
• 5y EPS volatility: fail (FY2022 EPS dropped 38% before recovering).

The two fails are tight: cash conversion at 0.92 is fine for Buffett's 0.80 floor but tight for Smith's 0.95 standard, and the FY2022 earnings dip catches Smith's "smooth compounding" preference. Fundsmith has historically held Meta at meaningful weight since 2023; the framework's data signal is consistent with the fund's actual behaviour, including the post-2022-dip entry. The 79 score is a clean B-grade pass.

The Reality Labs question: what each framework does with the $17.7 billion loss

This is the META-specific framework discussion that the other mega-cap deep dives do not need. Each scorer handles the Reality Labs loss differently:

1. Buffett: reads consolidated operating margin (42.2%) and consolidated owner-earnings yield (4.84%). Reality Labs is in the denominator. The framework deducts roughly 8-12 points from what a Family-of-Apps-only read would generate. The 80 score reflects the consolidated read with a partial qualitative credit for the segment economics.
2. Graham: reads consolidated P/E (24.6) and earnings yield (4.07%). Reality Labs is fully in the denominator. The framework deducts roughly 15-20 points from a hypothetical Family-of-Apps-only read.
3. Fisher: scuttlebutt-style reading would surface Reality Labs as deliberate long-duration capital allocation by founder-led management with explicit communication of the bet. Fisher historically tolerated this kind of spend (he wrote about it in the context of the 1950s tech compounders). The 86 score includes credit for the segment economics.
4. Lynch: reads PEG (0.71) on consolidated EPS, which Reality Labs depresses. A Family-of-Apps-only PEG would be closer to 0.55. Either way it passes the 1.0 ceiling.
5. Greenblatt: rank-based formula reads consolidated ROIC. Reality Labs compresses ROIC by roughly 4-6 percentage points. Even with the compression, ROIC ranks in the top decile.
6. Munger: mental-models framework treats Reality Labs as a "circle of competence" question rather than a P&L question. The framework deducts on management/governance rather than on margins.
7. Smith: Fundsmith reads consolidated FCF and consolidated ROCE. Reality Labs compresses both. The framework still passes with caveat.

The cross-framework dispersion (76 to 87) is structurally tied to how each scorer handles Reality Labs. Frameworks willing to read segment economics rate Meta higher.

Where the frameworks agree on META

Despite seven different lenses, four things show up in every scoring breakdown:

1. The moat in Family of Apps is the strongest in mega-cap. Network effects across Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and Threads create a switching cost that no framework's competitive analysis dismisses. The Buffett Brain prints a 90/100 moat score, the highest of any mega-cap reviewed in this series.
2. The balance sheet is fortress-grade. D/E of 0.27, net cash, current ratio of 2.74 (the highest in mega-cap big tech). Every framework that includes a balance-sheet test passes Meta on it without effort.
3. Capital allocation has improved materially. The buyback has accelerated through 2023 to 2025. The dividend was initiated in February 2024 (the first in company history, a quarterly $0.50, raised to $0.525 in 2025). The Reality Labs spend is explicit, communicated, and bounded by management's stated framework.
4. Growth is real and broad-based. 15.8% revenue CAGR and 19.3% EPS CAGR over five years are real, with the FY2022 dip the only volatility year. The EPS-outpacing-revenue test passes by 3.5 percentage points, which Fisher would call the operational-leverage signal.

Where the frameworks disagree on META

Three points of disagreement:

1. How to weight the FY2022 dip. Smith and Fisher penalise the volatility year (revenue down 1.1%, EPS down 38%). Lynch and Greenblatt look past it because the rebound is durable. The dispersion across the seven scores (76 to 87) is partly driven by how strict each framework is on earnings smoothness.
2. How to read Reality Labs. Graham reads consolidated GAAP and fails the price test catastrophically. Fisher and Lynch are willing to read Family-of-Apps economics through the segment data and rate META higher. The owner-earnings concept Buffett built was made for exactly this debate.
3. Whether to weight the dual-class voting structure. Munger's framework penalises management quality for the supervoting shares. Buffett, Graham, Lynch and Greenblatt do not include governance criteria at the line-item level. The 6-point gap between Munger (82) and the average of the others reflects that one criterion difference.

Does META make the 47-stock all-7-frameworks cohort?

Yes, comfortably. META's minimum framework score is 76 (Graham), which clears the 60 pass-threshold by 16 points. Its cross-framework average is 82.0 out of 100, third in the mega-cap cohort behind NVDA (83.4) and GOOGL (82.4), and ahead of AAPL (73.6), MSFT (66.9), AMZN (64.9) and TSLA.

The full 47-stock consensus list is in our cross-framework data study. The headline finding there is that 0.71% of the 6,621 stocks scored on every framework pass all seven at a B-minus or better. META joins NVDA, GOOGL and Visa in the rare set of trillion-dollar businesses that clear every framework.

Halal compliance: is META AAOIFI Standard 21 compliant?

Yes, with a small caveat that the halal page surfaces explicitly. invest-like.com's halal screener applies the AAOIFI Standard 21 criteria as implemented in our halal screening methodology. META's interest-bearing debt to market cap ratio is 2.61%, well below the 30% AAOIFI ceiling. The business activity (advertising, social networking, mixed reality hardware) is not on the prohibited-industry list. The non-permissible income ratio (interest income from cash holdings) is below the 5% threshold.

META shows up on /halal/meta/ as compliant. The caveat the page surfaces is the small advertising exposure to non-permissible advertisers (gambling, alcohol), which AAOIFI Standard 21 treats as a partial-purification consideration rather than a compliance fail.

What this means for an investor

The seven-framework breakdown is not a "buy META" or "sell META" signal. It is a structured way to see which value-investing lenses agree on the business and which disagree. Three observations a reader might draw, none of which are advice:

First, the framework dispersion (76 to 87) is narrower than the AAPL spread (29 points) but wider than the GOOGL spread (10 points). The cluster sits at a high cross-framework average (82.0), second only to NVDA (83.4). Meta is one of the cleanest canon-passers at trillion-dollar scale and the only one with a 90/100 moat score.

Second, the Reality Labs question is the framework-specific debate the canon does not unanimously settle. Buffett's owner-earnings concept, properly applied, would treat the segment differently than the strict GAAP read. Readers using META as a test case for owner-earnings-style accounting will find a clearer signal here than for any other mega-cap.

Third, the dividend initiation in February 2024 moved Meta into a different framework cohort. Three of the seven frameworks (Graham, Fisher, Smith) include a dividend-record criterion or weight; the initiation added roughly 4-7 points to those three scores. Meta is now in the small set of mega-cap businesses that combine quality, growth, balance-sheet strength and a return-of-capital record.

The Boardroom feature on /boardroom/meta/ runs the four-investor debate in long form and is the natural follow-on to this post. It lets the four authors argue the Reality Labs question directly.

Where this stock fits in the 7-framework consensus

Framework	META Score	Pass / Fail	Read
Buffett (moat + quality)	80	Pass	Family of Apps cash machine, Reality Labs is the single drag
Graham (defensive)	76	Pass	Structural half clears, valuation half fails but lighter than peers
Fisher (growth quality)	86	Pass	Highest Fisher score in mega-cap, scuttlebutt-friendly business
Lynch (GARP)	84	Pass	All 6 criteria pass, only mega-cap with clean Lynch sheet
Greenblatt (Magic Formula)	87	Pass	ROIC top decile, EV/EBIT inside formula tolerance for quality tier
Munger (mental models)	82	Pass	Quality and price both clear, governance the single deduction
T. Smith (Fundsmith)	79	Pass	Quality compounder with caveats on FY2022 dip and cash conversion

Cross-framework average: 82.0 / 100. All 7 pass. Minimum margin: 16 points (Graham at 76 vs 60 floor).

FAQ

Is Meta a Buffett stock?

It is a clean partial Buffett fit. The invest-like Buffett scorer rates META 80 out of 100 with a "B" letter grade and verdict "yes", 7 of 9 criteria pass, with the owner-earnings yield missing the 5% floor by 0.16 percentage points and the FY2022 earnings smoothness criterion failing by 1 point. The Buffett Brain breaks the framework score into five pillars: moat 90, durability 78, management 76, valuation 76, financial health 84. The 90/100 moat score is the highest of any mega-cap. Buffett himself has not held a Meta position publicly, which the framework signal does not encode either way.

How does the Reality Labs loss change the framework read?

Reality Labs reported a $17.7 billion operating loss in FY2024 against Family of Apps' $87.1 billion operating profit. Frameworks that read consolidated GAAP earnings (Graham, Buffett, Smith) underweight the Family of Apps cash machine by 8-20 points. Frameworks that read segment economics (Fisher, Lynch) rate META higher. The dispersion across the seven scores (76 to 87) is structurally tied to how each scorer handles the segment-mix question. Buffett's "owner earnings" concept, properly applied, would treat Reality Labs as discretionary capital allocation rather than maintenance expense; the framework as implemented in our scorer reads it as expense.

Is META overvalued?

By Graham's strict defensive rules (P/E above 15, P/B above 1.5), yes, but by less than most mega-caps. By Buffett's owner-earnings yield test, META fails by 0.16 percentage points, the narrowest miss in the cohort. By Greenblatt's earnings-yield ranking, META is in the third quintile, ahead of AAPL and AMZN. By Lynch's PEG, META passes at 0.71, the lowest PEG in mega-cap. By Munger's P/E ceiling of 30, META passes at 24.6. By Smith's P/E ceiling of 35, META passes comfortably. The seven-framework view: five say fair-or-cheap, two say expensive-but-bounded. The headline is consistent across the canon: META is a wonderful business at a price the value canon largely accepts.

Why did Meta initiate a dividend in 2024?

Meta declared its first-ever dividend on 1 February 2024 ($0.50 per share quarterly, raised to $0.525 in 2025). The framework signal is straightforward: management is signalling that capital allocation now includes return-to-shareholder, with the dividend bounded at a level that does not constrain Reality Labs investment. Three of the seven frameworks (Graham, Fisher, Smith) include a dividend-record criterion or weight; META's dividend initiation moved the Graham score up by 6 points and the Smith score up by 4 in our late-2024 snapshot.

What are good META alternatives in the same sector?

The cleanest direct comparators are Alphabet (GOOGL) for advertising-business comparability, Microsoft (MSFT) for hyperscaler-class margins, and Apple (AAPL) for the dual-class governance and capital-return profile. Cleaner peer comparisons are on the META vs GOOGL, META vs MSFT and META vs AAPL pages.

Is Meta halal?

Yes, by AAOIFI Standard 21 as implemented on invest-like. META's interest-bearing debt to market cap is 2.61%, well below the 30% ceiling. Its business activity (advertising, social networking, mixed reality) is not prohibited. Non-permissible income from cash interest is below the 5% threshold. The halal status field returns "compliant" on every API response for ticker META. A small partial-purification consideration applies to the proportion of advertising revenue from non-permissible advertisers; the halal page surfaces the exact ratio.

How often do these scores update?

The strategy scores in the database refresh roughly every two weeks against the latest FMP fundamentals snapshot. The Buffett Brain pillar breakdown is cached for 30 days and re-runs on a schedule. The cross-framework data study underlying the 47-stock cohort is dated and re-runs quarterly. Specific number citations in this post are stable against the 26 May 2026 snapshot but will drift over time as new earnings get ingested.

Educational disclaimer

This is an educational analysis of how seven separately implemented value-investing frameworks score one stock. It is not investment advice, not a buy or sell recommendation, and not a substitute for reading the original Buffett shareholder letters, Graham's Intelligent Investor, Fisher's Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits, Lynch's One Up on Wall Street, Greenblatt's Little Book that Beats the Market, Munger's Poor Charlie's Almanack, or Smith's Investing for Growth. The framework scores are deterministic outputs from financial-statement criteria; they do not predict price. Past performance of Meta Platforms stock (or any stock) is not a forecast.

All scores cited in this post come from invest-like.com's strategy_scores and buffett_analyses production tables, snapshot 26 May 2026, with financial-statement data sourced from Meta's 2024 10-K (filed 31 January 2025) and trailing FY2025 earnings releases. The methodology for each scorer is documented at /methodology/, and per-framework rule sets are at /methodology/buffett-fit/ and /methodology/deal-breakers/. The same scoring logic powers every verdict on the production site, including the per-ticker page at /buffett/meta/ and the public API response at /api/public/verdict/META.

If you want to run the same seven-framework treatment on a stock you actually own, paste its ticker into the search bar on the homepage. The free tier gives three full verdicts a week. The 47-stock all-seven-frameworks cohort that META sits inside is browsable at /blog/12500-stocks-7-frameworks-cross-framework-consensus/. For the same treatment on other mega-caps, see our deep dives on Apple (AAPL), Alphabet (GOOGL), Amazon (AMZN), NVIDIA (NVDA) and Microsoft (MSFT).