Buffett
Quality compounding with a margin of safety.
Cross-framework consensus is the practice of grading the same stock under multiple named-investor frameworks at the same time and treating agreement across the frameworks as the actionable signal. invest-like runs seven of them on 21,000+ stocks across 68 countries, roughly half of them listed outside the US.
Last reviewed:
A single value-investing framework looks at a stock through one specific lens. Buffett sees moat and durability; Graham sees a P/E and a current ratio; Lynch sees a PEG ratio; Greenblatt sees a Magic Formula rank. Each lens has documented criteria and deliberate blind spots. Cross-framework consensus grades the same ticker under seven such lenses simultaneously. A stock that scores well on six of seven has converging evidence the way no single framework can produce, and a stock where the frameworks disagree shows you exactly where the argument lives.
Each named investor published criteria across decades of letters, books, or interviews. invest-like implements those criteria as testable rules and runs them against current fundamentals.
Quality compounding with a margin of safety.
Defensive deep value, statistical cheapness.
Scuttlebutt-driven growth quality.
Growth at a reasonable price (PEG-based).
Magic Formula, ROIC + earnings yield.
Strictest quality + near-zero debt.
Quality compounders, FCF conversion.
Full criteria for each framework live on the methodology hub.
A stock that scores well on Buffett is a quality compounder bought at a fair price. A stock that scores well on Graham is statistically cheap with a defensible balance sheet. A stock that scores well on Lynch is growing into its multiple. These are different bets with different criteria and different blind spots.
A stock that scores well on six or seven of the seven is something else: a name where the strongest published value-investing lenses converge despite having different criteria. That convergence is rare, hard to fake by tilting one ratio, and the clearest signal a quantitative screen can produce. The backtested track record shows what the best-of-seven cohort actually did over the last five years.
The frameworks were designed to disagree. Graham passes on growth premiums Fisher requires; Lynch buys at earnings velocities Munger considers fragile; Greenblatt's formula ignores moat and management by design while Buffett centres on both. When the frameworks split on a ticker, the split itself tells you what the live argument is.
For example: a stock that grades A on Lynch and D on Munger is being read as a fast grower with too much debt for Munger's liking. A stock that grades A on Graham and D on Buffett is statistically cheap but lacks the moat Buffett requires. The output is not a verdict; it is a structured disagreement you can examine.
This is why invest-like publishes all seven framework grades on every /buffett/[ticker] page, not just the headline Buffett-Fit Score. The full picture is what cross-framework consensus produces; the headline is a convenient summary.
Correo semanal gratis
Las acciones más sólidas de la semana, cada lunes.
Cada lunes: las acciones en las que la mayoría de los siete inversores coinciden por primera vez. Un correo, te das de baja cuando quieras.
Investigación, no asesoramiento de inversión.
Every ticker on invest-like carries all seven framework grades plus the cross-framework consensus. No paywall on the grades themselves.
Educational only. invest-like is not a registered investment adviser; nothing here is personalised investment advice. Always do your own research and consider your individual circumstances.