Finviz is the go-to free stock screener, but its fundamentals are shallow and it has no valuation or quality scoring. The short answer if you want to actually judge the stocks you screen: pair Finviz (or another screener) with Intrinsiqq for quality scores and DCF fair value, and Stock Analysis for clean financials. Here is a detailed look at the best free Finviz alternatives in 2026, by what each does well and where it falls short.
What Finviz is good and not good at
Finviz is excellent for fast, broad screening and its market heatmap, and the free tier is genuinely usable. Where it falls short: per-company fundamental depth, any valuation model, and any sense of whether a business is high quality. So the right alternative depends on which gap you are filling, screening itself, or the analysis that comes after.
What the free tier actually limits
Worth being specific, because “Finviz is free” and “the useful parts of Finviz are free” are different claims. The free screener covers a large filter set and is the main reason to be there at all. What sits behind Finviz Elite is mostly real-time data rather than delayed quotes, backtesting, advanced charting with more indicators, and exporting your screen results. For a long-term fundamental investor, almost none of that matters: you are not trading intraday, and end-of-day pricing is entirely adequate for deciding whether to own a business for five years.
This is why “alternative to Finviz” is usually the wrong search. Most people arriving at that query are not unhappy with the screening; they have a shortlist and no way to judge it. Swapping to a different screener solves nothing, because the second screener has the same blind spot. The useful move is to add a tool that does the part Finviz was never built to do, which is what the comparison below is organised around.
The best free Finviz alternatives, compared
| Tool | Screener | Quality score | DCF / valuation | Financials | Charts | Free tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intrinsiqq | Yes (quality/value) | Yes (0-100) | Yes, 2-stage DCF | 10+ years | Fundamental | Full, no account |
| Finviz | Yes (strong) | No | No | Snapshot | Price | Good (ads) |
| Stock Analysis | Yes | No | No | 5 yrs free (10 Pro) | Price (basic) | Generous |
| TradingView | Yes | No | No | Some | Price (best) | Good |
| Simply Wall St | Yes | Visual grade | Yes (gated) | Limited | Visual | Limited views |
Each alternative in depth
Intrinsiqq, for the analysis Finviz lacks
Intrinsiqqfills Finviz's biggest gap: once you have a short list, it tells you whether each stock is a good business at a fair price, with a documented quality score, a two-stage DCF fair value, dividend safety, and 10+ years of SEC-sourced financials, free with no account. Its screener also lets you filter on those same quality and value metrics.
Strengths
- +Free quality score + adjustable DCF, the depth Finviz lacks
- +Screen on quality, value, and dividend metrics
- +Advanced fundamental charting: any metric over 10+ years, free
- +SEC-sourced financials, no account
Limitations
- ×Screener is less broad than Finviz's larger filter set
- ×Non-US fundamentals come from a data provider, not filings
- ×End-of-day prices
Stock Analysis, for screening plus clean data
Stock Analysis offers a free screener alongside the cleanest free financial statements, a good all-round free alternative if you want both in one place.
Strengths
- +Free screener and clean financials (~5 years free)
- +Uncluttered, fast, no account
- +Good ratios and overview pages
Limitations
- ×No quality score or DCF valuation
- ×Screener is less powerful than Finviz's
- ×Data-first, you interpret it yourself
Simply Wall St, for a fast visual verdict
Simply Wall St is the closest thing to the opposite of Finviz: where Finviz gives you raw numbers and no opinion, Simply Wall St gives you an opinion rendered as an infographic and comparatively little raw data. Its snowflake graphic summarises value, future, past, health and dividend at a glance, which is genuinely useful for a first impression and much friendlier to a beginner than a screener grid. The trade-offs are that the free tier limits how many companies you can look at, and that a visual grade is hard to interrogate: when the snowflake says a stock is poor value you cannot easily see which assumption drove that. Good for triage, harder to rely on for a decision.
Strengths
- +Fastest way to form a first impression of a company
- +Genuinely beginner-friendly presentation
- +Covers value, health, dividend and growth in one graphic
Limitations
- ×Free tier limits how many companies you can view
- ×Visual grades are hard to interrogate or reproduce
- ×Less raw data than Finviz or Stock Analysis
TradingView, for screening plus price charts
TradingView pairs a solid free screener with the best free price charting, so it suits anyone who screens and then wants to study the price chart and technicals. Note that this is a different job from fundamental charting: TradingView is built around price and technicals (it has solid raw financials too), while Intrinsiqq is built around charting the financials (revenue, margins, cash flow, and their valuation multiples) over a decade.
Strengths
- +Best-in-class price charts plus a capable screener
- +Large community of scripts and ideas
- +Multi-asset coverage
Limitations
- ×No valuation model or quality verdict
- ×Advanced layouts and features are paid
- ×Not built for 'is this a good business?'
Judge any screener hit for free
Quality score, DCF fair value, and 10+ years of SEC-sourced financials on any US stock.
Analyze a stock freeWhat a screener cannot tell you, measured
Finviz's filters are numeric, which means they answer “which stocks have these properties” but never “is this a good business.” It is worth seeing how large that gap is in practice, so we measured it on the most common screen there is: a low P/E.
Across US-listed companies above $1bn, 433 trade on a P/E below 12. Run that screen on Finviz and those are your results. Score the same 433 on business quality and they split three ways: 147 of them (34%) score 70 or above, genuinely good businesses that happen to be cheap, while 127 (29%) score below 50, which is the classic value trap. The rest sit in between.
| Group | Count | Share | Average quality score |
|---|---|---|---|
| P/E below 12, quality 70+ | 147 | 34% | high quality, cheap |
| P/E below 12, quality under 50 | 127 | 29% | likely value traps |
| All P/E below 12 | 433 | 100% | 60.3 |
| All companies above $1bn | 3,115 | - | 51.7 |
There is a genuine surprise in that last comparison, and it cuts against the usual warning. Cheap stocks average a higherquality score (60.3) than the market as a whole (51.7), so “low P/E means junk” is simply not true in our data. The real problem is different and more annoying: a P/E screen hands you a roughly even mix of good businesses and broken ones, and resolving which is which is exactly the work the screener does not do. That is the gap an alternative needs to fill, and it is why pairing a screener with a valuation and quality tool beats swapping one screener for another.
Screen on Finviz, judge on Intrinsiqq
The most effective free workflow is two steps. Use Finviz (or the Intrinsiqq screener) to narrow thousands of stocks down to a short list, then open each candidate on Intrinsiqq for the part Finviz cannot do: a quality score, a two-stage DCF fair value, dividend safety, and a decade of financials. Screening finds candidates; valuation tells you which are actually worth owning. If you are not sure how to judge that, our guide on how to tell if a stock is overvalued covers the multiples and DCF approach.
- Need the fastest, broadest screener? Stay on Finviz.
- Need valuation and quality on the results? Intrinsiqq.
- Need price charts alongside screening? TradingView.
- Need fundamental charts (financials over time)? Intrinsiqq.