Home · Blog
Performance

Month two: the leaderboard flipped

July 9, 2026 · ~4 min read

Last month I published the first month of forward-return data for 20+ screening strategies. Momentum and quality led, classic value lagged, and every strategy finished positive on a strong up-market. The caveat was front and centre: one cohort each, one month, so none of it proved a durable edge. The only way to tell skill from a good tape is to keep measuring.

Month two is in, and it did something the first post can only have hoped for as a teaching moment: it nearly turned the whole board upside down.

How this was measured

Same method as last time. For each strategy I take the cohort of tickers it picked on a given past date, enter at the first available close after that date, and measure the average percent return to the latest close. These numbers come from picks made on June 8, 2026, measured to July 8, 2026, a fresh one-month window that does not overlap last month's. Each cohort is about 22 equal-weighted names (a couple are smaller). No transaction costs.

Bar chart of 1-month forward returns by screening strategy, June 8 to July 8 2026. Value and small-cap-quality strategies lead near +6%, while momentum strategies fall hard, with Small Cap Momentum worst at about -13%.
1-month forward return by screening strategy · picks from June 8 → measured July 8, 2026.

The leaderboard, two months side by side

The "last month" column is the real May 2 → June 1 result from the first post, so you can watch each strategy move. A few screeners are new to the board this month and have no prior figure.

#Screening strategy1-mo (June)Last month
1Small Cap Quality Growth+5.9%n/a
2Institutional Accumulation+5.3%n/a
3Deep Value / Graham-style+4.5%+0.9%
4Insider Buying + Quality+4.4%+8.5%
5Small Cap Value+3.8%+2.1%
652w Low Value+3.6%+3.0%
7Magic Formula+1.9%n/a
8Shareholder Yield+0.8%+5.0%
9Pure High-Yield Income+0.5%n/a
10Sustained Growth / FCF+0.2%+6.9%
11Quality / Compounder+0.0%+13.7%
12Price-to-Sales Value-0.5%n/a
13Breakout + Earnings-0.5%+10.0%
14High Quality Growth (Sales)-0.7%+12.8%
15Low Volatility Defensive-1.4%+11.6%
16High Quality Growth (PEG)-1.5%+11.3%
17Dividend Growth-2.0%+4.8%
18Capital-Light / Asset-Light-2.2%+12.3%
19Fortress Balance Sheet-3.5%+11.8%
20Free Cash Flow Machine-4.4%+9.2%
21Margin Expansion-5.7%+11.4%
22GARP-6.0%+16.5%
23Momentum / Earnings Acceleration-7.6%+18.1%
24Small Cap Momentum-13.2%+12.4%

What stood out

This is the whole lesson in one table. Two months, and they pointed in almost opposite directions. If you had read last month's post and chased its top strategy into June, you would have gone from first place to near the bottom. That is exactly the recency trap this project exists to expose: a single month of returns is mostly noise, and a strategy's rank can flip entirely from one window to the next. Neither month is a verdict on any screener. The signal, if there is one, only shows up after many months across many different tapes.

What's next

Two months in, the case for the multi-cohort view is obvious: instead of judging each strategy on its single latest pick date, average forward returns across every past pick date, so one lucky or unlucky entry stops swinging the whole ranking. That is the next piece. I'm also still digging into consensus picks, the tickers several independent strategies flag at once, to see whether agreement across screeners holds up better than any single one did here.

Want the data behind this?

Daily picks, consensus signals, and cohort-based performance, all as a simple JSON API, with a free tier.

Get it on RapidAPI →