Most dividend screeners let you filter by yield, and yield alone is a trap. We measured it across our own database: of the 311 US-listed companies above $1bn that yield 5% or more, dividend scores run all the way from 25 to 94 out of 100, and 118 of them, 38%, do not cover their dividend with free cash flow at all. A screen that sorts by yield puts those 118 at the top of your list. The short answer for a free dividend screener that checks safety as well as yield: Intrinsiqq, which scores dividend safety and growth from SEC filings. Here is how the free options compare.
How we compared these
We used each tool as a dividend investor would: run a screen for 5%+ yields, then try to work out which of the results are actually safe. The statistics quoted here come from our own screener across every US-listed company we score, computed 25 August 2026. Competitor features were checked on the same date. We build one of the tools compared, which is declared in every section rather than hidden, and the limitations of ours are listed alongside its strengths.
Every tool was judged on the same questions:
- →Does it score dividend durability for you, or only filter on raw numbers?
- →Can you filter on payout ratio and free-cash-flow coverage, not just yield?
- →Is dividend history and growth visible over a decade, or only the current figure?
- →Where does the underlying data come from, and can you trace a number to a filing?
- →What is genuinely free, without an account or a view limit?
Competitor plans and features last verified 25 August 2026. Pricing and free tiers change often, so check the source before relying on any figure here.
Why yield-only screening fails, measured
The theory is familiar: a high yield can mean a bargain or a company about to cut. What is less often shown is how wide the gap actually is once you look at every high-yielder at once rather than at a handful of examples.
Sort our database by yield and the top of the list is dominated by companies whose dividends are not funded by the cash the business generates. Stellantis yields 14.9% and scores 25 out of 100, with free cash flow that is negative, meaning the payout is coming from the balance sheet rather than from operations. Vale yields 6.6% and also scores 25. Crown Castle yields 7.0% and scores 32. Now compare those with Comcast at a 5.4% yield and a score of 94, covering its dividend more than four times over from free cash flow. On a yield screen, all five look like the same kind of stock.
| Company | Yield | Dividend score | FCF coverage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Comcast (CMCSA) | 5.4% | 94 / 100 | 4.2x |
| Petrobras (PBR) | 6.8% | 83 / 100 | 2.1x |
| Progressive (PGR) | 6.5% | 69 / 100 | 2.0x |
| Kraft Heinz (KHC) | 6.3% | 42 / 100 | 2.0x |
| Crown Castle (CCI) | 7.0% | 32 / 100 | 1.0x |
| Vale (VALE) | 6.6% | 25 / 100 | 0.7x |
| Stellantis (STLA) | 14.9% | 25 / 100 | negative |
One honest caveat on the 38% figure: free-cash-flow coverage is the wrong lens for REITs, which are required to distribute most of their taxable income and are better judged on funds from operations. Some of those 118 companies are REITs whose dividends are more secure than the ratio suggests. The great majority are not, and the conclusion holds either way: yield tells you nothing about durability, so a screener that only filters yield is asking you to do the actual work yourself.
What a dividend screener has to check
- Payout ratio. Dividends as a share of earnings. Under about 60% leaves a cushion; above 90% means a single bad year forces a choice between the dividend and the balance sheet.
- Free-cash-flow coverage. Free cash flow divided by dividends paid. Earnings can be shaped by accounting choices; cash is harder to manufacture. Below 1.0x means the company is paying shareholders with money it did not generate.
- Consecutive years of payments and raises.A long unbroken record shows the dividend is treated as a commitment. Watch for pauses as well as cuts: several companies froze payouts in 2020 without cutting, which a “no cuts” filter misses.
- Dividend growth rate. A payout that has not moved in five years is losing to inflation even if it is perfectly safe.
- The balance sheet. Debt service competes with the dividend for the same cash, and lenders get paid first.
For the full method, including where each threshold comes from, see our guide on how to tell if a dividend is safe.
The best free dividend screeners, compared
| Tool | Safety scored? | Yield / payout filter | Growth analysis | Data source | Free tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intrinsiqq | Yes (safety + growth + income) | Yes | Yes (5Y CAGR + streak) | SEC EDGAR | Full, no account |
| Finviz | No, raw ratios only | Yes | Limited | Aggregated | Good (ads) |
| Stock Analysis | No, data tables | Yes | History shown | Aggregated | Generous |
| Simply Wall St | Partial (visual snowflake) | Yes | Yes | Aggregated | Limited views |
| Dividend.com | Yes (DARS, paywalled) | Yes | Yes | Aggregated | Very limited |
The options in depth
Intrinsiqq, for durability rather than yield
Intrinsiqq computes a dividend score as a weighted composite: safety at 40% (earnings payout ratio and free-cash-flow coverage), growth at 35% (raise streak and growth rate), and income at 25% (current yield). Because it is built on SEC EDGAR filings, the payout and history numbers come straight from what companies reported to regulators, and every threshold behind the score is published rather than kept proprietary. Free, no account.
Strengths
- +Scores durability as a composite, not just yield
- +Payout, coverage and history parsed from SEC filings
- +Chart dividend per share and payout ratio over a decade, free
- +Every weighting and threshold published on the methodology page
Limitations
- ×Non-US fundamentals come from a data provider, not filings
- ×End-of-day prices, not real time
- ×Fewer raw filter fields than Finviz
- ×Verifiable raise streaks cap at 18 years, the limit of SEC XBRL history
Finviz, for speed and raw filters
Finviz remains the fastest way to cut a large universe down by numeric filters, and its dividend yield and payout-ratio screens are genuinely useful as a first pass. What it will not do is form a judgement: it returns the companies matching your numbers and leaves the safety question entirely to you, which on a 5%+ screen means manually checking a few hundred results. Best used as step one, with the durability work done elsewhere.
Strengths
- +Very fast, very large filter set
- +Free tier is genuinely usable
- +Good for building a shortlist
Limitations
- ×No durability judgement at all
- ×Aggregated data, not filings
- ×Ad-supported interface
Stock Analysis, for clean history tables
Stock Analysis presents dividend history in clear tables that are pleasant to read through by hand, and its free tier is more generous than most. It is a reference rather than a screener in the judgement sense: excellent if you already know which companies you are examining and want the raw record, less helpful if you need to narrow 311 candidates down.
Strengths
- +Clean, readable dividend history
- +Generous free tier
- +Good coverage of US names
Limitations
- ×No safety scoring
- ×You do the analysis yourself
- ×Aggregated data
Simply Wall St and Dividend.com
Simply Wall St visualises dividend health inside its snowflake graphic, which communicates a verdict quickly but is deliberately impressionistic, and the free tier limits how many companies you can look at. Dividend.com runs a proprietary DARS rating that does exactly the durability job described above, but the ratings sit behind a paywall, so it does not really belong on a list of free options. Both are worth knowing about; neither is free enough to screen a whole market with.
How to run a safety-first dividend screen
Whichever tool you use, invert the usual order. Screening on yield first and checking safety second means wading through the 38% that fail. Screening on durability first and reading the yields second means every candidate on your list is already fundable.
- Start with coverage, not yield. Filter for free cash flow at least 1.5x the dividend. That single step removes most of the traps.
- Add a payout-ratio ceiling of roughly 75% of earnings, adjusted upward for REITs and utilities where high payouts are structural.
- Require a payment record of at least five unbroken years, so you are looking at policy rather than a one-off.
- Only now sort by yield, and take the highest yields remaining. These are the ones where a big number is not a warning sign.
- Check the sector norm before judging the result. A 5% REIT yield is ordinary; a 5% software yield would be extraordinary.
Screen on dividend durability, free
Payout ratio, free-cash-flow coverage, raise streak, and a 0-100 dividend score, computed from SEC filings. No account.
Open the screenerHow to choose
- Want durability scored for you across the whole market? Intrinsiqq.
- Want to filter fast on raw numbers as a first pass? Finviz.
- Want dividend history tables to read yourself? Stock Analysis.
- Want a quick visual verdict on a handful of names? Simply Wall St.
- Happy to pay for a rating? Dividend.com's DARS.
The honest summary: Finviz and Stock Analysis are better raw-data tools than we are, and if you want to do the durability analysis yourself they are excellent. We built the dividend score because doing that analysis by hand across 311 candidates is work almost nobody actually does, and skipping it is what puts a value trap in an income portfolio.