GlossaryGlossary

What Is a 5‑Star Analyst? Definition and Example

How analyst star ratings work, what separates a 5-star analyst from a 4-star one, and why 4 stars is a sensible threshold.

Published Updated 3 min readHow we research

Key takeaways

  • A 5-star analyst is one whose past calls score at the top of a ranking that combines how often they were right, how much their calls returned and how many calls they made.
  • In Exent’s ranking, 142 of the 1,121 analysts rate 5 stars; their median price-target hit rate was 60.5% vs 54.4% for 4-star analysts (as of Oct 20, 2026).
  • A 4-star bar keeps more stocks with several scored analysts covering them, while still excluding weak records.
  • Stars describe past records only; they can fall as new calls resolve.

Which stocks do Wall Street’s best‑ranked analysts agree on? See them in Exent Gems →

What does a star rating on an analyst mean?

A star rating compresses an analyst’s track record into one score from 0 to 5. Several data sites publish star ratings with their own formulas. The ranking used here combines the analyst’s success rate, the average return of their calls and the number of ratings, over a 7-year lookback, so a handful of lucky calls cannot earn top marks.

Example: 5-star vs 4-star records

GroupAnalystsMedian price-target hit rateMedian calls up after 12 monthsMedian 12-month return after call
5 stars14260.5%68.6%+19.9%
4 to under 5 stars96654.4%63.2%+12.4%
Group5 stars4 to under 5 stars
Analysts142966
Median price-target hit rate60.5%54.4%
Median calls up after 12 months68.6%63.2%
Median 12-month return after call+19.9%+12.4%

Source: Exent’s ranking of 1,121 analysts, as of Oct 20, 2026. Past results; they do not guarantee future accuracy.

Why use a 4-star threshold?

Counting 4 stars and above as top-rated widens the bar beyond 5 stars. More stocks then have several scored analysts covering them, while weak records are still excluded. Rankings and profiles are on the analysts page.

Why it matters for a self-directed investor

Most ratings are buys, so the rating alone says little. Knowing which analysts have been right lets you weight their views instead of counting heads in the consensus.

Common mistakes

  • Comparing stars across sites: each uses a different formula.
  • Ignoring sector: a star earned covering one industry does not carry to another.
  • Following one star analyst blindly: even the best are wrong on a large share of calls.

See analysts’ star ratings with Exent

  1. Stocks Radar ranks thousands of Wall Street analysts by past accuracy and shows each one’s stars, hit rate and calls.
  2. Exent counts 4 stars and above as top‑rated; Gems are stocks where several of them agree.

Exent is our product. Educational content, not investment advice.

Frequently asked questions

Among the 1,121 analysts in Exent’s ranking as of Oct 20, 2026, 142 rated 5 stars. The count changes as new calls resolve.

No. The median 5-star analyst reached 60.5% of price targets, so roughly four in ten targets were missed.

Yes. Ratings are recalculated as new calls resolve, so a run of poor calls lowers the score.

Get the picks Wall Street’s best analysts agree on.

Exent tracks 4,000+ analysts, keeps only the elite few with proven records, and surfaces the Gems where they agree.

See this week’s GemsLimited offer$1.95 for full access· full access

Educational content, not investment advice. Examples are illustrative; past performance does not guarantee future results.

DISCLAIMER: Exent AI is an informational research platform and does not provide investment advice, financial advice, or act as an investment adviser, broker-dealer, or fiduciary. All content, analytics, and model outputs are provided for educational and informational purposes only and should not be relied upon as a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any financial instrument. Investing involves risk, including the possible loss of principal. Exent AI does not execute trades, hold customer funds, or provide brokerage services. Past performance and hypothetical results are not indicative of future results. Third-party data and AI-generated outputs may be incomplete or inaccurate.