A research summary: how concentrated stock market gains are, what the decade’s biggest winners shared in Exent’s data, what published studies of 10‑baggers found, and why none of it is a reliable way to pick the next one.
Which stocks do Wall Street’s best‑ranked analysts agree on? See them in Exent Gems →
In hindsight, three things. They were in a market that grew for many years. They turned that growth into profit, with margins that held up or rose as they scaled. And they rode a theme that much of the market ended up buying into, which lifted the price investors were willing to pay. In the last decade that theme was computing for AI and the cloud.
They also shared something less flattering: deep falls and long stretches behind the index. Those traits are visible only after the fact. Before the fact, many companies look the same and most of them fail, which is why none of this works as a stock-picking formula.
Yes. The strongest evidence comes from Hendrik Bessembinder of Arizona State University. In “Do stocks outperform Treasury bills?” (Journal of Financial Economics, 2018), he studied every US common stock from 1926 to 2016. According to the university’s summary, 1,092 companies, 4.3% of the nearly 26,000 stocks, created all of the $35 trillion of wealth above Treasury bill returns, and more than half of it came from just 90 companies.
| Study | Sample | Share of firms that created all net wealth | Share of stocks that trailed T-bills |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bessembinder (2018) | About 26,000 US stocks, 1926–2016 | 4.3% | 58% |
| Bessembinder, Chen, Choi and Wei (2023) | More than 64,000 global stocks, 1990–2020 | 2.4% (all $75.7 trillion) | 55.2% of US stocks; 57.4% of non-US |
The cause is skewness. A stock can lose at most 100%, but it can gain many thousands of percent, so a few huge winners outweigh many losers. That is also why most stock pickers trail the index; see how many stocks beat the S&P 500.
In Exent’s data on the 422 largest US stocks with a 10-year history, the 152 that beat the S&P 500 in the 10 years to Sep 30, 2026 shared a sector more than anything else. Fourteen of the top 20 were technology stocks, and nine were semiconductor companies. Younger listings also did better. Their drawdowns did not set them apart.
| Trait (10 years to Sep 30, 2026) | The 152 stocks that beat the S&P 500 | All 422 large stocks |
|---|---|---|
| Technology stocks | 48 (32%) | 77 (18%) |
| Listed since 2005 (incl. spin-offs) | 39 (26%) | 84 (20%) |
| Median worst fall in the decade | −54.6% | −53.6% |
| Median calendar years trailing the S&P 500 (of 9) | 4 | — |
Put another way, 62% of large technology stocks and 46% of companies listed since 2005 beat the index, against 36% of all large stocks. The full ranked list is in stocks that beat the S&P 500 over the last 10 years.
The most recent systematic study is a 2025 working paper by Anna Yartseva at Birmingham City University, “The Alchemy of Multibagger Stocks”. It examined 464 US stocks that rose at least tenfold between 2009 and 2024. In its model, the companies that did best were small, profitable and modestly valued at the start, with a high free cash flow yield. Investment patterns linked to EBITDA growth, price momentum with quick reversals and the interest-rate environment also mattered. It is a working paper, not yet peer-reviewed.
A 100-bagger is far rarer. Among the 422 large US stocks in the 10-year data, 47 rose 10x or more and only one, Nvidia, rose more than 100x. Thirty-four of the 47 ten-baggers fell 50% or more at some point along the way. The full list is in how often stocks go up 10x.
A smooth path. The winners did not beat the index every year, and they did not avoid crashes. Nvidia lost 50.3% in 2022; Tesla lost 65.0% the same year. The median 10-year winner trailed the S&P 500 in 4 of the 9 full calendar years from 2017 to 2025, and 129 of the 152 trailed it in at least three years.
This matters because the traits investors hope to see in a future winner, steady gains and a stock that “acts well”, were not there for long stretches. Many holders sold during those stretches. How deep the falls were, stock by stock, is in how far the big winners fell.
Only as a starting point. Every trait above also describes many companies that went nowhere. A growing market attracts competitors; profitable small companies often stay small; a hot theme can already be in the price. Research describes the group of past winners, not which member of today’s look-alikes will join it.
Investors who hunt for big winners tend to accept a low hit rate and manage it with position size: many small bets, each one affordable to lose, held long enough for a winner to matter. See how to find the next Nvidia for the practical side.
Data: the 500 largest US common stocks listed on the NYSE or Nasdaq by market value at the October 2026 data export (operating companies only; one share class per company); 422 with a full 10-year history. Total return from month-end adjusted closes with dividends reinvested, 10 years to Sep 30, 2026. Listing dates are as recorded in the market database and include spin-offs and relistings.
Yes. Hendrik Bessembinder found that about 4% of US listed companies created all of the stock market’s net wealth above Treasury bills from 1926 to 2016, and 90 companies created more than half of it.
A 2025 working paper on 464 US stocks that rose 10x or more in 2009–2024 found that small, profitable, modestly valued companies with high free cash flow yield did best. Most ten-baggers also suffered falls of 50% or more along the way.
They are too rare to study easily over short periods. Among the 422 largest US stocks with 10 years of history to Sep 30, 2026, only Nvidia rose more than 100x.
No. The median worst fall among the large US stocks that beat the S&P 500 over the 10 years to Sep 30, 2026 was 54.6%, close to the 53.6% median for all large stocks.
The traits help narrow a list but do not pick winners, because many companies share them and fail. Investors who try usually keep each bet small.
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.