Are Analyst Price Targets Accurate? 7 Years of Data
How often Wall Street price targets are reached, how long it takes, and how the promised upside compares with what stocks actually did. From Exent’s backtest of 921,573 analyst ratings.
ResourcesInsight
How Accurate Are Wall Street Analysts? October 2026 Report
A dated monthly check on Wall Street analyst accuracy: how often price targets were reached within 12 months, how wide the spread between analysts is, which sectors’ analysts did best and worst, and what analysts rated in the latest full month.
Key takeaways
- About half the time. As of Oct 20, 2026, the average analyst’s 12‑month price target was reached 53.6% of the time across 763,230 targets; the median analyst hit 55.8%.
- The spread is wide: of 917 analysts with a measurable record, 143 (15.6%) reached 70% or more of their targets, while 333 (36.3%) reached fewer than half.
- By sector, Technology analysts had the highest median hit rate (60.5%) and Real Estate the lowest (39.6%). Healthcare, with 156 analysts, came in at 41.9%.
- A hit target is not a return. Targets promised 63.2% upside on average; the median rated stock was up 13.4% a year later, after an average dip of 22.5% along the way.
- In August 2026, 68.3% of 16,641 ratings were Buy and 3.5% were Sell, and downgrades outnumbered upgrades 353 to 232.
Which stocks do Wall Street’s best‑ranked analysts agree on? See them in Exent Gems →
In this article
- How accurate are Wall Street analysts in October 2026?
- How many analysts hit 70% or more of their targets?
- Which sector’s analysts are most accurate?
- What did analysts rate in August and September 2026?
- How we measure analyst accuracy
- Does a hit price target mean investors made money?
- Exent’s top 50 analysts
How accurate are Wall Street analysts in October 2026?
About half of their price targets are reached. In Exent’s data as of October 20, 2026, the average analyst’s bullish 12‑month target was reached 53.6% of the time. The figure covers 921,573 ratings from 1,121 ranked analysts over a 7‑year lookback, of which 763,230 carried a price target. Ratings from the last two years did slightly better, at 56.5%.
“Reached” means the stock closed at or above the target on at least one day within 365 days of the rating. That is a generous test, and it still lands close to a coin flip. For the longer explanation of what the number means, see are analyst price targets accurate?
| Measure (as of Oct 20, 2026) | Value |
|---|---|
| Analysts in the ranking | 1,121 |
| Ratings replayed (7 years) | 921,573 |
| Ratings with a price target | 763,230 |
| Average analyst: targets reached within 12 months | 53.6% |
| Same, ratings from the last 2 years | 56.5% |
| Median analyst’s hit rate | 55.8% |
| Median days to reach a target (hits only) | 91 |
| Rated stocks higher 12 months later | 64.6% |
How many analysts hit 70% or more of their targets?
143 of 917, or 15.6%. Only analysts with a measurable hit rate are counted. Most analysts sit in the middle: 441 (48.1%) reached between 50% and 70% of their targets. At the other end, 91 analysts reached fewer than 30%.
| Share of targets reached | Analysts | Share of analysts |
|---|---|---|
| Below 30% | 91 | 9.9% |
| 30–40% | 83 | 9.1% |
| 40–50% | 159 | 17.3% |
| 50–60% | 248 | 27.0% |
| 60–70% | 193 | 21.0% |
| 70–80% | 85 | 9.3% |
| 80% or more | 58 | 6.3% |
| Total | 917 | 100% |
The width of this spread is the practical point. A target from an analyst who reached 75% of past targets and one from an analyst who reached 35% look identical in a headline. How to judge an analyst covers what to check besides the hit rate, such as the number of calls behind it and how recent they are.
Which sector’s analysts are most accurate?
Technology, on the median: the typical Technology analyst reached 60.5% of targets, ahead of Materials (59.8%) and Industrials (58.2%). Real Estate (39.6%) and Healthcare (41.9%) were lowest. The medians below include every ranked analyst in each sector, not a selected group; sectors with fewer than 10 analysts are left out.
| Sector | Analysts | Median hit rate | Median share of stocks up after 12 months |
|---|---|---|---|
| Technology | 254 | 60.5% | 61.9% |
| Materials | 103 | 59.8% | 68.0% |
| Industrials | 178 | 58.2% | 69.6% |
| Consumer Staples | 13 | 56.9% | 68.7% |
| Financials | 165 | 55.5% | 73.0% |
| Consumer Discretionary | 69 | 54.0% | 60.2% |
| Energy | 78 | 53.5% | 68.0% |
| Communication Services | 54 | 52.0% | 58.0% |
| Utilities | 29 | 47.0% | 75.6% |
| Healthcare | 156 | 41.9% | 53.3% |
| Real Estate | 22 | 39.6% | 59.1% |
Two cautions. First, sector results partly reflect what the sector did: a rising sector lifts every analyst who covers it. Second, the two columns measure different things. Utilities analysts had the highest share of stocks up after 12 months (75.6%) but a below‑average hit rate (47.0%), meaning stocks often rose, just not as far as the targets said. Consumer Staples rests on only 13 analysts. The full sector discussion is in analyst accuracy by sector.
What did analysts rate in August and September 2026?
Mostly Buy. In August 2026, the latest full month in the data, 68.3% of 16,641 ratings on US stocks were Buy, 28.2% Hold and 3.5% Sell. Downgrades outnumbered upgrades 353 to 232. The rating feed runs 30 days behind, so September is shown through September 22.
| Ratings issued | Aug 1–31, 2026 | Sep 1–22, 2026 |
|---|---|---|
| All ratings | 16,641 | 6,931 |
| Buy | 11,371 (68.3%) | 4,686 (67.6%) |
| Hold | 4,692 (28.2%) | 1,985 (28.6%) |
| Sell | 578 (3.5%) | 260 (3.8%) |
| Upgrades | 232 | 137 |
| Downgrades | 353 | 154 |
| New coverage (initiations) | 298 | 479 |
A Sell share under 4% is normal, not a sign of unusual optimism this month. Analysts rarely say Sell for business reasons covered in why analysts rarely say sell. That is also why a downgrade from Buy to Hold often carries more information than another Buy.
How we measure analyst accuracy
- Horizon: a target counts as hit if the stock closes at or above it on any day within 365 days of the rating, starting from the rating‑day close.
- Only bullish targets count: targets set at or below the rating‑day price are left out of the hit rate.
- Unresolved calls are counted, not dropped: a rating less than a year old is scored on the days so far, so a target not yet reached counts as a miss for now. This pulls recent figures down slightly.
- Revisions: every rating is its own call, including reiterations and raised or cut targets, so an analyst who updates often has more calls in the record.
- Equal weight: each analyst’s figures are computed first, then averaged, so a prolific analyst does not dominate the market figure.
- Survivorship: the study covers analysts in the current ranking. Analysts who stopped publishing are not in it, which may flatter the result.
- Target hit is not a return: a stock can touch its target in month four and give it all back by month twelve.
The methods differ from academic studies, so percentages should not be compared one for one. The longer study, with its own caveats, is is the average analyst a coin flip?
Does a hit price target mean investors made money?
Not necessarily. Targets promised an average 63.2% upside on the day they were set. The median rated stock returned 13.4% over the next 12 months, and on average a rated stock’s lowest close in that year was 22.5% below its rating‑day price.
| What the rating said or did | Figure (as of Oct 20, 2026) |
|---|---|
| Average implied upside when the target was set | 63.2% |
| Median stock return 12 months after the rating | +13.4% |
| Share of rated stocks higher after 12 months | 64.6% |
| Average lowest close within 12 months | −22.5% |
An investor who sold during the dip would have missed a later hit; one who held past the hit could have given the gain back. A target is a bullish opinion with a number attached. Past accuracy does not guarantee future accuracy. Each analyst’s own hit rate, days to hit and returns after calls are on the analyst rankings.
Exent’s top 50 analysts
Across 921,573 ratings, the average Wall Street analyst’s price target was reached 53.6% of the time: close to a coin flip. The spread between analysts is wide, and 15.6% of the 917 analysts with a measurable record reached 70% or more (Exent data, Oct 20, 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 check an analyst’s record with Exent
- Stocks Radar tracks thousands of Wall Street analysts and ranks them by past accuracy; each profile shows hit rate, days to hit and returns after each call.
- 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
About half the time on price targets. As of October 20, 2026, the average analyst’s 12-month target was reached 53.6% of the time in Exent’s 7-year data, and only 15.6% of analysts reached 70% or more.
Technology, with a median hit rate of 60.5% across 254 analysts, followed by Materials (59.8%) and Industrials (58.2%). Real Estate (39.6%) and Healthcare (41.9%) were lowest.
A bullish price target counts as hit if the stock closes at or above it within 365 days of the rating. Each analyst’s hit rate is computed first and then averaged, and ratings younger than a year are scored on the days so far.
In August 2026, 68.3% of 16,641 ratings on US stocks were Buy, 28.2% Hold and 3.5% Sell.
Not necessarily. The median rated stock returned 13.4% over 12 months while targets implied 63.2% on average, and the typical stock first fell 22.5% below its rating-day price at some point in the year.
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.