Screen a user-defined sector for best-in-class names by a mix of technical, fundamental, and momentum criteria
Finds the best-in-class names within a sector you choose (default Technology). It keeps only stocks in that sector that clear market-cap and liquidity filters, scores them on relative strength, 1- and 3-month returns, EPS growth, and estimate revisions, and adds a sector term, the same for every candidate of the sector, from the sector's own relative strength and 1-month return. The output is a ranked shortlist of the sector's leaders with their supporting figures. It shows which names lead a sector you choose on these measures, as research leads rather than selections; sector-strength context degrades gracefully if that data is unavailable.
Best-in-class within a sector - and why holding the sector constant is the point.
THE RATIONALE. Comparing companies across sectors on most metrics is close to meaningless. Margins, growth rates, leverage and valuation multiples differ structurally by industry - a software company and a utility have entirely different economics - so a cross-sector ranking on any of them partly ranks by SECTOR MEMBERSHIP rather than by quality. Screening within one sector holds that constant, which is what makes the comparison interpretable. It is the same reasoning behind sector-relative valuation in equity research.
GICS IS WHAT MAKES IT POSSIBLE. The Global Industry Classification Standard assigns each company one primary classification at each tier, by principal business activity, maintained by a standard-setter. Note the consequences: a diversified conglomerate receives ONE sector, and a company whose business is shifting keeps its classification until reviewed. Classification is a consistent judgement rather than a fact, which is what makes it useful and also approximate.
THE METRICS AND WHAT THEY ADD. Relative strength and 1- and 3-month returns are price momentum. EPS growth is fundamental. Estimate revisions are forward-looking. Combining price, fundamentals and expectations is sound practice, since each can be right when the others are wrong - though note that revisions and price momentum overlap, because analysts revise after price-moving news.
THE SECTOR TERM is the interesting design decision, and what it does depends on how the screen is read. Every candidate receives the same points from its sector's own relative strength and 1-month return, so within one screen it moves every score by the same amount and changes no rank: the order is set by the names' own measures. What it changes is the level, so a strong sector's leaders score higher than a weak sector's leaders on another run. It encodes a real observation - sector effects explain a substantial share of individual stock returns, so a strong stock in a weak sector is fighting a headwind - and scores compared across sector screens are procyclical, favouring whatever sector has already run.
AND THE STRUCTURAL LIMIT OF ANY SINGLE-SECTOR SCREEN. It compares names inside one sector and does not assess that sector against others. A best-in-class name in a sector in structural decline is still in a sector in structural decline. The sector-rotation analyses describe how sectors compare.
The default Technology sector, the weights and the sector term's size are our own convention.
Published reports are readable without an account. The newest is Ether (ETH) and XRP extend a month-long slide as Bitcoin falls below $75,000: trend, momentum and news (Nov 9, 2026). Create an account to run research on the stocks and crypto you choose.