Stockopedia alternative: US filings

Stockopedia is a European and UK screening service with a ranking system applied across a large universe. ValueScreener is a research tool whose subject is one company at a time and whose job is to tell you when a reason you wrote down stops being true. If you invest in the UK or Europe, those are their home ground. This product covers companies listed on NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSE American, plus 54 other markets with a Home Market Pack (see each market).

What both do

Both rank and screen companies on computed fundamentals, both publish a company report built from the accounts, both alert, and both charge a single subscription with no advertising in it. Their plans page, read 2026-09-18, describes a screener you can build "with 350+ financial ratios or explore our 65 GuruScreens". Screening and StockReports are their published product, and screening is one of three entry surfaces here.

The difference that decides it

Geography first. Their plans page, read 2026-09-18, sells Europe including the UK at EUR 550 a year, US and Europe including the UK at EUR 725 a year, and a custom multi-region plan at a price they do not publish. Setting their own currency selector to USD prints the same two packages at $600 and $800 a year. Published report coverage is 9,000 or more StockReports on the European plan, 19,000 or more on US and Europe, and up to 35,000 or more on custom. There is no United States only package on the page. This product covers companies listed on NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSE American, plus 54 other markets with a Home Market Pack (see each market).

Then shape. A StockRank is a single comparable ranking across a large universe, which is a genuinely useful way to shorten a list. The output here is not a ranking you act on but a record you keep: a thesis in your own words, numeric guardrails attached to it, and a nightly re-test of those guardrails against newly filed accounts, with one email on the day one breaks.

Then the alert, and this is the closest any product on this list comes to what ValueScreener does. Their plans page publishes an Alerts feature in every plan: "Set unlimited alerts on price, fundamentals, and more to stay up-to-date with the stocks on your radar." An alert on a fundamental is the right family of idea, and unlimited is more generous than a metered one. What that sentence does not say, and what we could not establish from the page, is what the trigger is measured against and when it runs: whether a rule you set is re-tested against a company's newly filed statement, on the night it lands, and emailed once. Here that is the specification rather than a feature line: after the newest filings are ingested each night, every guardrail on a thesis whose figure we hold is recomputed from the filed statements and tested again, one email goes out on the day one breaks with the arithmetic and the filing attached, and the record of each night's pass sits in the product so a quiet month is checkable. A guardrail we could not read that night is left untested and reported as untested, never as holding. Whether theirs does the same thing is not stated on the page we read, so we record it as not established rather than as absent.

Then provenance. Every figure on a company page here opens into its formula, its inputs and, where one stands behind it, the statement it came from, the fiscal year and the filing date. A figure that cannot show that trail says so. We looked for a published description of a per-figure trace on their plans page on 2026-09-18 and did not find one. That is absence of published evidence on the page we read, not a claim that they do not have it.

What each costs

Their figures are quoted from their own plans page as read on 2026-09-18, in both the euro view the page opens in and the dollar view their own currency selector produces. Nothing here is converted between currencies by us.

Where Stockopedia is better

Europe and the UK are their home ground. A UK or European investor is better served by a service whose home ground is their market, and no feature on this page changes that.

They publish their own refund rate, with the sample and the window: "1.9% of 5,649 investors who tried Stockopedia between January 1st, 2023, and April 24th, 2024, were issued a refund as per our money-back guarantee." Almost nobody in this category discloses at that standard. It deserves to be said plainly, and this product does not publish an equivalent figure.

Their alerts are unlimited and they cover fundamentals as well as price, on every plan. Ours are attached to a thesis and there is no published limit on them either, but theirs is the broader published surface: a price, a fundamental "and more", on any stock on their radar rather than only on the companies you have written a thesis about.

A StockRank gives one comparable number across a far larger pool than this product ranks, which makes a first cut across several countries possible in a way it is not here. Their published report coverage runs to 35,000 or more StockReports on the custom multi-region plan, which is a breadth of covered company this product does not attempt.

Their trial takes a card; ours runs 30 days of Professional, no card. Their money-back window is thirty days, like our 30-day money-back guarantee on a first payment.

Who should pick which

If your portfolio is British or European, start with theirs. If it is American and what you want is a ranked shortlist across a big universe, theirs still answers that better than this product, whose rankings are of US-listed companies.

If your holdings are US-listed and what you want is the filing behind each number plus a nightly check on your own thresholds, that is what this product does. Both are research tools, neither gives advice, and this page compares software rather than securities.

What this leaves out

Every claim about Stockopedia here was read on their own plans page on 2026-09-18. Their years of fundamental history are not described on that page and are therefore not stated here. Their alerting is described on it, in one sentence, and that sentence is quoted in full above rather than summarised, because what it does not say is the part that matters to this comparison. Where this page says a capability was not established, that is the limit of what the page we read says, not a statement that it does not exist.