Is the Average Wall Street Analyst a Coin Flip?
We replayed 628,792 ratings from the 1,000 top‑ranked Wall Street analysts over seven years. The average analyst’s price target was reached about half the time. Here is the full study: method, distribution, stars, sectors and caveats.
Key takeaways
- Close to it. Across 628,792 ratings in Exent’s 7-year backtest, the average analyst’s price target was reached 52.4% of the time within 12 months: barely better than a coin flip.
- The spread is wide. Of 811 analysts with a measurable record, 321 hit fewer than half their targets and 48 hit 80% or more.
- Analysts with Exent’s top 5-star rating had a median hit rate of 60.8%, against 52.8% for 4-star analysts.
- Sector matters: the median Materials analyst hit 62.3% of targets, the median Healthcare analyst 37.7%.
- The test window was mostly a rising market, which flatters bullish calls. Past accuracy does not guarantee future accuracy.
Is the average Wall Street analyst a coin flip?
Nearly. In Exent’s 7-year backtest, the average analyst’s price target was reached 52.4% of the time within 12 months of the rating. The median analyst did slightly better, at 53.9%. Either way, a reader who followed a randomly chosen analyst’s target was right about as often as a coin toss.
The study covers the 1,000 analysts ranked highest in our analyst ranking, 628,792 ratings over a 7-year lookback, and statistics as of June 24, 2026. These are not obscure analysts. They are the top of the profession by our scoring, which makes the near coin flip more striking.
| Measure (average analyst) | Result |
|---|---|
| Ratings replayed | 628,792 |
| Ratings with a price target | 520,742 |
| Price targets reached within 12 months | 52.4% |
| Same, ratings from the last 2 years only | 55.4% |
| Median days to reach a target, when reached | 91 |
| Stock higher 1 month after the rating | 55.0% |
| Stock higher 12 months after the rating | 64.0% |
| Median 12-month stock return after a rating | +13.4% |
| Average lowest point within 12 months, vs rating-day price | −22.0% |
How the study works
The backtest replays every rating each analyst published over the lookback and asks the same questions of each one. The rules are simple and the same for everyone:
- Entry price: the stock’s closing price on the rating date.
- Hit: a price target above the entry price counts as reached if the stock closes at or above it within 365 days. Targets set below the price are left out of the hit rate.
- Days to hit: calendar days from the rating to the first close at or above the target.
- Returns: the stock’s price change 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after the rating, for every rating, whatever its direction.
- Lowest point: the worst close in the 12 months after the rating, relative to the entry price.
- Aggregation: each analyst’s statistics are computed first; the totals above average those figures across analysts, so a prolific analyst does not dominate.
The method is deliberately generous to analysts. A target counts as hit if the stock touches it on a closing basis at any point in the year, even if it falls back below by month 12. For what a target is and how it is set, see price target; for the success rate used in rankings, see analyst success rate.
How spread out are analyst hit rates?
Very. The average hides a wide range: some analysts reached fewer than three in ten of their targets, others more than eight in ten. Of the 1,000 ranked analysts, 811 had enough priced ratings in the backtest to measure a hit rate.
| Price-target hit rate | Analysts | Share of 811 |
|---|---|---|
| Below 30% | 93 | 11.5% |
| 30–40% | 91 | 11.2% |
| 40–50% | 137 | 16.9% |
| 50–60% | 205 | 25.3% |
| 60–70% | 164 | 20.2% |
| 70–80% | 73 | 9.0% |
| 80% or more | 48 | 5.9% |
Put simply: about 40% of ranked analysts hit fewer than half their targets, and only about 15% hit 70% or more. That spread is the practical point. Following “Wall Street” as a whole gets you the coin flip. Following individual analysts by their record is a different exercise, explained in how to judge an analyst.
Are top-rated analysts more accurate?
Yes, on average. Analysts with a 5-star rating in our scoring reached a median 60.8% of their targets, eight points more than 4-star analysts, and the stocks they rated did better over the next 12 months.
| Star rating | Analysts | Median hit rate | Median share up after 12 months | Median 12-month return |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 stars | 141 | 60.8% | 68.6% | +19.9% |
| 4 to 4.9 stars | 853 | 52.8% | 62.8% | +12.0% |
| Below 4 stars | 5 | Too few to compare | — | — |
| Star rating | 5 stars | 4 to 4.9 stars | Below 4 stars |
|---|---|---|---|
| Analysts | 141 | 853 | 5 |
| Median hit rate | 60.8% | 52.8% | Too few to compare |
| Median share up after 12 months | 68.6% | 62.8% | — |
| Median 12-month return | +19.9% | +12.0% | — |
Stars are not the same thing as hit rate. The star rating combines success rate, average return and the number of ratings. In the same data, 30 of the 125 five-star analysts with a measurable hit rate reached fewer than half their targets. A star rating is a starting point, not a verdict.
Which sectors have the most accurate analysts?
Materials and Technology analysts had the highest median hit rates; Healthcare and Real Estate analysts the lowest. Sectors with fewer than ten ranked analysts are left out; Consumer Staples, with 11, is a small sample.
| Sector | Analysts | Median hit rate | Median share up after 12 months |
|---|---|---|---|
| Materials | 98 | 62.3% | 67.0% |
| Technology | 207 | 61.8% | 64.7% |
| Industrials | 170 | 58.4% | 69.5% |
| Consumer Staples | 11 | 54.7% | 69.4% |
| Financials | 156 | 53.8% | 72.3% |
| Consumer Discretionary | 68 | 51.5% | 59.8% |
| Communication Services | 49 | 50.6% | 57.0% |
| Energy | 62 | 50.3% | 66.2% |
| Utilities | 28 | 42.6% | 74.2% |
| Healthcare | 129 | 37.7% | 52.9% |
| Real Estate | 22 | 37.3% | 58.1% |
Hit rate and direction can disagree. Utilities analysts reached only 42.6% of targets, yet the stocks they rated were higher a year later 74.2% of the time: the direction was usually right, the targets too ambitious. More in analyst accuracy by sector.
Why “stock went up” is a low bar
Analysts are mostly bullish, and the market mostly rose. In the latest 12 months of ratings from these analysts, 115,183 were Buy, 42,272 Hold and 4,537 Sell: about 71% Buy and under 3% Sell. Meanwhile the S&P 500 ETF (SPY) gained in six of the seven calendar years from 2019 to 2025, falling only in 2022 (−18.2%).
In that environment, “the stock was higher a year later” (64% of ratings) says as much about the market as about the analyst. The price-target hit rate is the stricter test, because the analyst has named a number.
Does academic research agree?
Broadly, yes. A study of 12-month target prices from 2000 to 2009 by Bradshaw, Brown and Huang, published in 2013 in the Review of Accounting Studies, found that only 38% of targets were met at the end of the 12 months and 64% at some point during them. It found implied returns exceeded actual returns by 15% on average, and only “economically weak” evidence that some analysts are persistently better at targets.
The samples and rules differ from ours, so the numbers are not directly comparable. The direction is the same: targets are optimistic, and the typical one is far from a sure thing.
Caveats and limits
- The sample is the 1,000 analysts ranked highest in our scoring, not every analyst. Lower-ranked analysts are not in these figures.
- Most of the window was a bull market, which favors bullish targets and positive returns.
- A hit counts on any close within 365 days; the stock may have fallen back afterwards.
- Returns are price changes before dividends, costs and taxes, and are not risk-adjusted.
- 189 of the 1,000 analysts had too few priced ratings in the backtest to measure a hit rate.
- This is historical research, not a forecast and not investment advice. Past accuracy does not guarantee future accuracy.
How to use analyst records with Exent
- Stocks Radar tracks thousands of Wall Street analysts and ranks them by past accuracy; each profile shows hit rate, star rating, price targets and covered stocks.
- Gems are stocks where several top‑rated analysts (4★ and above) agree: Exent’s hunt for the next big winners, not a forecast.
- Upload your holdings to Portfolio Analysis to see what analysts and insiders say about the stocks you already own.
Frequently asked questions
In Exent’s 7-year backtest of 628,792 ratings, the average analyst’s price target was reached 52.4% of the time within 12 months. Ratings from the last two years did slightly better, at 55.4%.
On average, only slightly. The average analyst’s targets were reached 52.4% of the time, but the best analysts did much better: 48 of 811 measurable analysts reached 80% or more.
On average, yes. In Exent’s data, 5-star analysts had a median hit rate of 60.8% versus 52.8% for 4-star analysts, but about a quarter of 5-star analysts still hit fewer than half their targets.
When a target was reached, the median analyst took 91 days. About half of the hits came within 90 days and about a quarter took more than 180 days.
No. It is historical research on past ratings. Past accuracy does not guarantee future accuracy, and it says nothing about whether any stock suits your situation.
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.
Educational content, not investment advice. Examples are illustrative; past performance does not guarantee future results.