▶ Full Post Text
I built a scanner that scores about 1,896 US-listed companies to find undervalued opportunities. This week, my checks filtered out 22 names with untrustworthy numbers. I have compiled my current top-10 list, my methodology, and my track record of open and closed positions.
|\#|Ticker|Company|Price|Upside to fair value|Off 52-wk high|
|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|
|1|ADBE|Adobe|$265.21|\+31%|\-28%|
|2|INTU|Intuit|$325.25|\+82%|\-57%|
|3|OMCL|Omnicell|$36.81|\+84%|\-33%|
|4|EPAM|EPAM Systems|$97.43|\+82%|\-56%|
|5|ANIP|ANI Pharmaceuticals|$78.25|\+75%|\-21%|
|6|SPSC|SPS Commerce|$73.38|\+83%|\-37%|
|7|GSHD|Goosehead Insurance|$65.20|\+66%|\-28%|
|8|NBIX|Neurocrine Biosciences|$163.41|\+78%|\-12%|
|9|ADSK|Autodesk|$249.08|\+67%|\-24%|
|10|FICO|Fair Isaac|$1,041.40|\+89%|\-48%|
**What stands out in the top names**
**Adobe** is 28% off its 52-week high with revenue up 11% in the same stretch. The engine's fair value sits +31% above today's price.
**Intuit** has revenue up 15% year on year while the price sits 57% below its high. The engine's fair value sits +82% above today's price.
**Omnicell (healthcare)** has been cut 33% from its high while revenue grew 8%. The engine's fair value sits +84% above today's price.
**EPAM Systems (technology)** trades 56% below its high after growing revenue 11%. The engine's fair value sits +82% above today's price.
**ANI Pharmaceuticals (healthcare)** grew revenue 37% over the last twelve months and still trades 21% below its 52-week high. The engine's fair value sits +75% above today's price.
All ten trade at double-digit discounts to their 52-week highs. Whether each discount is deserved is exactly the research a table like this is supposed to start, not replace.
**The track record, and why you should discount it**
The scanner runs a public paper portfolio on its own signals. Closed so far: 23 positions, all at their profit target, averaging +34.7% in about 47 days.
Do not read that as a 100% win rate. The book is young, and a closed sample from a young book is biased toward fast winners by construction: positions that hit their target quickly resolve first, slow ones and losers are still sitting in the open book. The honest reading of those 23 closes is "this is what the early winners look like", nothing more. Judge the system when the losers have had time to lose.
With that said, the open book, in full: 130 positions, 113 above entry and 17 below, median unrealized +12.6%, worst -11.9%.
And the part that matters before anyone types "disposition effect": exits are mechanical. Every position gets a profit target and a stop loss the day it opens, and closes automatically at whichever comes first. Nobody is choosing to hold losers: so far the targets have come first, and the stops sit where they were set. Paper money, every trade logged publicly the day it happens, wins and losses alike.
**How the list is built**
About 1,896 US-listed companies get scored on valuation, fundamental quality and risk. Fair value comes from two independent anchors, the analyst target consensus and what the company has historically traded at on its own earnings. Analyst targets lag by nature, which is why they are only one of the two anchors and the other is the company priced against its own history. The table is ranked by valuation score, not raw discount.
Names get excluded when the number cannot be trusted rather than when it looks bad: implied upside above 120% (almost always a broken estimate, not a bargain), fewer than 5 covering analysts, price under $5, forward P/E under 5x. That filtered out 22 names this week, several showing bigger implied upside than anything in the table, which is exactly why they are out.
This is a screen, not a recommendation. It is where research starts, not where it ends.