Buffett
Quality compounding with a margin of safety.
Definition
What is cross-framework consensus in value investing?
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 every US-listed stock.
Last reviewed:
Short answer
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.
The seven frameworks
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.
Graham
Defensive deep value, statistical cheapness.
Fisher
Scuttlebutt-driven growth quality.
Lynch
Growth at a reasonable price (PEG-based).
Greenblatt
Magic Formula, ROIC + earnings yield.
Munger
Strictest quality + near-zero debt.
T. Smith
Quality compounders, FCF conversion.
Full criteria for each framework live on the methodology hub.
Why agreement is the signal
Convergence is rare and hard to fake
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.
Disagreement is also a signal
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.
Related
- Cross-framework consensus dashboard - the live ranking of US-listed stocks ordered by how many of the seven frameworks call them a buy right now.
- Cross-framework working papers - the empirical backbone behind the consensus rule and how it outperforms single-framework picks.
- Seven-framework methodology hub - the rubrics for all seven frameworks invest-like scores every stock against.
See seven frameworks on one stock
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.