Which Wall Street Analysts Are the Most Accurate?
How Exent ranks Wall Street analysts on a 7‑year backtest, which public records stand out, which firms and sectors do best, and how to judge any analyst before you read their next call.
ResourcesGuide
Analyst Accuracy by Sector: Where Wall Street Gets It Right
Analysts covering some sectors reached their price targets far more often than others. Here is the sector-by-sector record from Exent’s 7‑year backtest, why it differs, and how to use it when judging a tech or any other analyst.
Key takeaways
- In Exent’s 7-year backtest, the median Technology analyst reached 60.0% of price targets and the median Materials analyst 59.5%; Healthcare (42.6%) and Real Estate (36.0%) were lowest.
- Hit rate and direction can disagree: the median Utilities analyst hit 43.8% of targets, yet 75.0% of the stocks they rated were higher a year later.
- Technology analysts hold 41 of the top 100 ranks in Exent’s ranking, helped by a strong period for tech stocks.
- Judge an analyst against their own sector’s median, not the 53.1% all-analyst average.
Which stocks do Wall Street’s best‑ranked analysts agree on? See them in Exent Gems →
In this article
- Which sectors have the most accurate analysts?
- Why can an analyst miss the target but get the direction right?
- Why are Healthcare analysts among the least accurate?
- Did sector performance drive the results?
- Who is the best tech or semiconductor analyst?
- Exent’s top 50 analysts
- How to use sector accuracy when judging an analyst
Which sectors have the most accurate analysts?
Technology, Materials and Industrials. In Exent’s 7-year backtest of 958,671 ratings by the 1,148 analysts in Exent’s ranking (statistics as of Nov 2, 2026), these sectors had the highest median price-target hit rates. A target counts as hit if the stock closed at or above it within 12 months of the rating. Each analyst is assigned to their main sector.
| Sector | Analysts | Median target hit rate | Median share of stocks up after 12 months | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Technology | 260 | 60.0% | 62.4% | 2.4 pts |
| Materials | 104 | 59.5% | 67.7% | 8.2 pts |
| Industrials | 180 | 57.2% | 70.1% | 12.9 pts |
| Consumer Staples | 13 | 56.2% | 68.3% | 12.1 pts |
| Financials | 168 | 54.0% | 73.7% | 19.7 pts |
| Energy | 79 | 53.2% | 69.6% | 16.4 pts |
| Consumer Discretionary | 70 | 52.3% | 59.1% | 6.8 pts |
| Communication Services | 56 | 51.8% | 55.7% | 3.9 pts |
| Utilities | 29 | 43.8% | 75.0% | 31.2 pts |
| Healthcare | 165 | 42.6% | 54.8% | 12.2 pts |
| Real Estate | 24 | 36.0% | 59.4% | 23.4 pts |
- Technology
- Analysts
- 260
- Median target hit rate
- 60.0%
- Median share of stocks up after 12 months
- 62.4%
- Gap
- 2.4 pts
- Materials
- Analysts
- 104
- Median target hit rate
- 59.5%
- Median share of stocks up after 12 months
- 67.7%
- Gap
- 8.2 pts
- Industrials
- Analysts
- 180
- Median target hit rate
- 57.2%
- Median share of stocks up after 12 months
- 70.1%
- Gap
- 12.9 pts
- Consumer Staples
- Analysts
- 13
- Median target hit rate
- 56.2%
- Median share of stocks up after 12 months
- 68.3%
- Gap
- 12.1 pts
- Financials
- Analysts
- 168
- Median target hit rate
- 54.0%
- Median share of stocks up after 12 months
- 73.7%
- Gap
- 19.7 pts
- Energy
- Analysts
- 79
- Median target hit rate
- 53.2%
- Median share of stocks up after 12 months
- 69.6%
- Gap
- 16.4 pts
- Consumer Discretionary
- Analysts
- 70
- Median target hit rate
- 52.3%
- Median share of stocks up after 12 months
- 59.1%
- Gap
- 6.8 pts
- Communication Services
- Analysts
- 56
- Median target hit rate
- 51.8%
- Median share of stocks up after 12 months
- 55.7%
- Gap
- 3.9 pts
- Utilities
- Analysts
- 29
- Median target hit rate
- 43.8%
- Median share of stocks up after 12 months
- 75.0%
- Gap
- 31.2 pts
- Healthcare
- Analysts
- 165
- Median target hit rate
- 42.6%
- Median share of stocks up after 12 months
- 54.8%
- Gap
- 12.2 pts
- Real Estate
- Analysts
- 24
- Median target hit rate
- 36.0%
- Median share of stocks up after 12 months
- 59.4%
- Gap
- 23.4 pts
Consumer Staples (13 analysts) and Real Estate (24) are small groups, so their medians are less stable. For the overall study, see is the average analyst a coin flip?
Why can an analyst miss the target but get the direction right?
Because the target can be too ambitious for how much the stock usually moves. The “Gap” column above shows it. Utilities analysts were right about direction far more often than they hit their targets: 75.0% of the stocks they rated were higher a year later, but only 43.8% of their targets were reached. Financials show the same pattern, less extreme.
Slow-moving, defensive stocks rarely jump far in a year, so a target that assumes a big move is hard to reach even when the call is broadly right. Where the gap is small, as in Technology, it suggests that stocks that rose usually rose enough to reach the target.
Why are Healthcare analysts among the least accurate?
In this data, Healthcare analysts were among the weakest on both tests: a median 42.6% hit rate, and only 54.8% of rated stocks higher a year later, the lowest of any sector. A plausible reason is the sector’s exposure to binary events, such as clinical trial results and regulatory decisions, which can move a stock sharply either way regardless of the analyst’s model. Real Estate, the other low scorer on hit rate, is sensitive to interest rates, which moved sharply during the test period.
Did sector performance drive the results?
Partly, but not neatly. Technology’s strong run plainly helped tech analysts. Materials analysts, though, had one of the highest hit rates in a sector whose ETF lagged the S&P 500 badly. The table uses sector ETF returns over five years to September 30, 2026; that window differs from the 7-year analyst backtest, so read it as context only.
| Sector ETF | 5-year total return | Median analyst hit rate |
|---|---|---|
| Technology (XLK) | +171.4% | 60.0% |
| Materials (XLB) | +34.8% | 59.5% |
| Energy (XLE) | +177.8% | 53.2% |
| Utilities (XLU) | +41.6% | 43.8% |
| Health Care (XLV) | +42.3% | 42.6% |
| S&P 500 (SPY) | +89.1% | 53.1% (all analysts, average) |
Energy is the counter-example: a strong sector return, a middling hit rate. Accuracy depends on how targets are set relative to how the stocks move, not just on whether the sector went up.
Who is the best tech or semiconductor analyst?
The top of the accuracy ranking is dominated by technology analysts: they hold 26 of the top 50 ranks and 41 of the top 100, though they are 260 of the 1,148 ranked. Some of that reflects the period. Semiconductor stocks had an exceptional run; the VanEck Semiconductor ETF (SMH) returned +389.8% over five years to September 30, 2026, against +89.1% for SPY. A bullish chip analyst in that market had the wind at their back.
Exent’s ranking assigns analysts to broad sectors, not sub-industries, so there is no separate semiconductor ranking. Named analysts with their records are in the most accurate stock analysts and on the analyst rankings, where each profile lists the stocks the analyst covers most.
Exent’s top 50 analysts
Across 958,671 ratings, the average Wall Street analyst’s price target was reached 53.1% of the time: close to a coin flip. The spread between analysts is wide, and 14.9% of the 942 analysts with a measurable record reached 70% or more (Exent data, Nov 2, 2026).
Exent Gems is built on the top 50 of Exent’s ranking. Over the last two years, some of them reached 90% or more of their price targets. Who they are, which stocks they are calling now and how often they have been right is for members.
How to use sector accuracy when judging an analyst
- Compare an analyst’s hit rate with their sector median, not the overall 53.1%.
- A 55% hit rate is above the median in Healthcare (42.6%) and below it in Technology (60.0%).
- In sectors with a large gap, also look at how often the analyst got the direction right.
- Ask whether a strong record came from a strong sector run that may not repeat.
- Prefer records that span several years and hundreds of ratings.
The full method is in how to judge an analyst. Past accuracy does not guarantee future accuracy, and sector patterns can change with the market.
How to use sector accuracy with Exent
- Stocks Radar tracks thousands of Wall Street analysts and ranks them by past accuracy, with a profile, price targets and covered stocks for each.
- 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, Technology analysts had the highest median price-target hit rate at 60.0%, just ahead of Materials at 59.5%.
On price targets, yes in this period: the median tech analyst hit 60.0% of targets versus 53.1% for the average analyst. A strong run for tech stocks helped.
In Exent’s data the median Healthcare analyst hit 42.6% of targets. Binary events such as trial results and regulatory decisions make healthcare stocks hard to forecast.
Exent ranks analysts by broad sector rather than sub-industry. Technology analysts, the group that includes semiconductor coverage, hold 41 of the top 100 places in Exent’s ranking.
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.