Cheap, durable, and permissible
One pipeline runs over S&P 1500 + Nasdaq-100 every day: rank on cheapness against industry peers, drop weak fundamentals, drop anything whose filings are going backwards, then keep only what passes the Sharia screen. What survives is below — with the arithmetic attached.
Read the upside figures carefully. They are the gap between today's price and what the company's own earnings, EBITDA or book value would be worth at its industry's median multiple — not a forecast, and not a target. Because the screen ranks on that gap, the names that reach this page are by construction the ones with the widest gaps in their cohort, so large percentages here are the method working as designed rather than bargains nobody noticed. A wide low-to-high range means the three methods disagree, which is information in itself.
This is a screen, not advice. It is a list of candidates for research, produced by a fixed pipeline and identical for every reader. Nothing here is personalized, nothing here says buy, and no ranking is a forecast of return. The compliance verdict is a calculation against published methodologies from SEC filings — it is not a fatwa; consult a qualified scholar for matters of fiqh. Read the full pipeline on the methodology page.
Published 2026-11-03 · built 2026-11-03 06:52 UTC · 14 names from 1506 screened · rebuilt daily
| # | Company | Price | Fair-value range | Upside | Cheap | Quality | Why it is cheap | Verdict | Watch |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | CRUS ↗ · Cirrus Logic | $111.48 | $298.41–$421.44 mid $352.61 | +216% | 94 | 89 | sector wide confidence 85/100 | compliant | + watch |
Show the work for CRUSWhat the filings showThe decline is close to the sector cohort's own median decline, so the cohort — not something specific to this company — accounts for most of what the price did. The drawdown sits within 5 percentage points of the cohort median, so the cohort explains the move before anything company-specific needs to.
What would change this classification
Fair-value inputs, method by method
How the rank was computed
Blended score 92.6/100. Cheapness is a percentile against 29 peers in Semiconductors (industry), built on 6 valuation metric(s). Quality used 7 component(s). The price sits 38% below its 52-week high. Purification: 0.00% of dividends and gains — see the full receipts in the portal report. |
|||||||||
| 2 | YELP ↗ · Yelp, Inc. | $19.81 | $31.53–$65.31 mid $48.42 | +144% | 98 | 77 | fundamentals intact confidence 85/100 | compliant | + watch |
Show the work for YELPWhat the filings showThe share price declined materially while the filed fundamentals held or grew. This is a description of what the filings and the price panel show, and nothing more. The price fell at least 20% from its 52-week high while 3 filed fundamental trends (fcf_trend, margin_trend, revenue_trend) held or grew, and none went backwards.
Fundamentals appearing intact does not establish that the decline will reverse. Filings lag the market, and the price may reflect information that has not reached a filing yet. What would change this classification
Fair-value inputs, method by method
Methods excluded, and why
How the rank was computed
Blended score 91.0/100. Cheapness is a percentile against 8 peers in Internet Content & Information (industry), built on 5 valuation metric(s). Quality used 7 component(s). The price sits 40% below its 52-week high. Purification: 0.00% of dividends and gains — see the full receipts in the portal report. |
|||||||||
| 3 | PLAB ↗ · Photronics, Inc. | $27.40 | $80.21–$158.34 mid $112.54 | +311% | 89 | 70 | sector wide confidence 85/100 | compliant | + watch |
Show the work for PLABWhat the filings showThe decline is close to the sector cohort's own median decline, so the cohort — not something specific to this company — accounts for most of what the price did. The drawdown sits within 5 percentage points of the cohort median, so the cohort explains the move before anything company-specific needs to.
What would change this classification
Fair-value inputs, method by method
How the rank was computed
Blended score 86.0/100. Cheapness is a percentile against 17 peers in Semiconductor Equipment & Materials (industry), built on 6 valuation metric(s). Quality used 7 component(s). The price sits 50% below its 52-week high. Purification: 0.00% of dividends and gains — see the full receipts in the portal report. |
|||||||||
| 4 | FSLR ↗ · First Solar | $182.05 | $466.19–$554.62 mid $506.13 | +178% | 87 | 73 | fundamentals intact confidence 85/100 | compliant | + watch |
Show the work for FSLRWhat the filings showThe share price declined materially while the filed fundamentals held or grew. This is a description of what the filings and the price panel show, and nothing more. The price fell at least 20% from its 52-week high while 3 filed fundamental trends (fcf_trend, margin_trend, revenue_trend) held or grew, and none went backwards.
Fundamentals appearing intact does not establish that the decline will reverse. Filings lag the market, and the price may reflect information that has not reached a filing yet. What would change this classification
Fair-value inputs, method by method
How the rank was computed
Blended score 85.7/100. Cheapness is a percentile against 223 peers in Technology (sector) (widened from the industry bucket, which had too few peers), built on 7 valuation metric(s). Quality used 7 component(s). The price sits 43% below its 52-week high. Purification: 0.00% of dividends and gains — see the full receipts in the portal report. |
|||||||||
| 5 | ENS ↗ · EnerSys | $159.98 | $264.39–$334.87 mid $321.48 | +101% | 85 | 73 | fundamentals intact confidence 85/100 | compliant | + watch |
Show the work for ENSWhat the filings showThe share price declined materially while the filed fundamentals held or grew. This is a description of what the filings and the price panel show, and nothing more. The price fell at least 20% from its 52-week high while 3 filed fundamental trends (fcf_trend, margin_trend, revenue_trend) held or grew, and none went backwards.
Fundamentals appearing intact does not establish that the decline will reverse. Filings lag the market, and the price may reflect information that has not reached a filing yet. What would change this classification
Fair-value inputs, method by method
How the rank was computed
Blended score 85.3/100. Cheapness is a percentile against 8 peers in Electrical Equipment & Parts (industry), built on 6 valuation metric(s). Quality used 7 component(s). The price sits 34% below its 52-week high. Purification: 0.00% of dividends and gains — see the full receipts in the portal report. |
|||||||||
| 6 | AA ↗ · Alcoa | $39.90 | $73.51–$126.83 mid $121.35 | +204% | 90 | 64 | fundamentals intact confidence 85/100 | compliant | + watch |
Show the work for AAWhat the filings showThe share price declined materially while the filed fundamentals held or grew. This is a description of what the filings and the price panel show, and nothing more. The price fell at least 20% from its 52-week high while 2 filed fundamental trends (fcf_trend, revenue_trend) held or grew, and none went backwards.
Fundamentals appearing intact does not establish that the decline will reverse. Filings lag the market, and the price may reflect information that has not reached a filing yet. What would change this classification
Fair-value inputs, method by method
How the rank was computed
Blended score 84.6/100. Cheapness is a percentile against 67 peers in Basic Materials (sector) (widened from the industry bucket, which had too few peers), built on 6 valuation metric(s). Quality used 7 component(s). The price sits 52% below its 52-week high. Purification: 0.00% of dividends and gains — see the full receipts in the portal report. |
|||||||||
| 7 | DVA ↗ · DaVita | $185.74 | $296.81–$423.45 mid $360.13 | +94% | 81 | 67 | fundamentals intact confidence 85/100 | questionable flagged | + watch |
Show the work for DVAWhat the filings showThe share price declined materially while the filed fundamentals held or grew. This is a description of what the filings and the price panel show, and nothing more. The price fell at least 20% from its 52-week high while 3 filed fundamental trends (fcf_trend, margin_trend, revenue_trend) held or grew, and none went backwards.
Fundamentals appearing intact does not establish that the decline will reverse. Filings lag the market, and the price may reflect information that has not reached a filing yet. What would change this classification
Fair-value inputs, method by method
Methods excluded, and why
How the rank was computed
Blended score 81.9/100. Cheapness is a percentile against 17 peers in Medical Care Facilities (industry), built on 6 valuation metric(s). Quality used 6 component(s). The price sits 23% below its 52-week high. Purification: 0.00% of dividends and gains — see the full receipts in the portal report. |
|||||||||
| 8 | MWA ↗ · Mueller Water Products | $24.02 | $29.03–$44.47 mid $34.63 | +44% | 81 | 76 | sector wide confidence 85/100 | compliant | + watch |
Show the work for MWAWhat the filings showThe decline is close to the sector cohort's own median decline, so the cohort — not something specific to this company — accounts for most of what the price did. The drawdown sits within 5 percentage points of the cohort median, so the cohort explains the move before anything company-specific needs to.
What would change this classification
Fair-value inputs, method by method
How the rank was computed
Blended score 81.7/100. Cheapness is a percentile against 36 peers in Specialty Industrial Machinery (industry), built on 7 valuation metric(s). Quality used 7 component(s). The price sits 20% below its 52-week high. Purification: 0.46% of dividends and gains — see the full receipts in the portal report. |
|||||||||
| 9 | VRRM ↗ · Verra Mobility Corporation | $2.68 | $4.69–$5.03 mid $4.86 | +81% | 81 | 58 | fundamentals intact confidence 85/100 | questionable flagged | + watch |
Show the work for VRRMWhat the filings showThe share price declined materially while the filed fundamentals held or grew. This is a description of what the filings and the price panel show, and nothing more. The price fell at least 20% from its 52-week high while 3 filed fundamental trends (fcf_trend, margin_trend, revenue_trend) held or grew, and none went backwards.
Fundamentals appearing intact does not establish that the decline will reverse. Filings lag the market, and the price may reflect information that has not reached a filing yet. What would change this classification
Fair-value inputs, method by method
Methods excluded, and why
How the rank was computed
Blended score 79.7/100. Cheapness is a percentile against 22 peers in Information Technology Services (industry), built on 6 valuation metric(s). Quality used 7 component(s). The price sits 88% below its 52-week high. Purification: 0.00% of dividends and gains — see the full receipts in the portal report. |
|||||||||
| 10 | CNM ↗ · Core & Main | $45.15 | $52.90–$70.84 mid $65.56 | +45% | 83 | 62 | fundamentals intact confidence 85/100 | compliant | + watch |
Show the work for CNMWhat the filings showThe share price declined materially while the filed fundamentals held or grew. This is a description of what the filings and the price panel show, and nothing more. The price fell at least 20% from its 52-week high while 3 filed fundamental trends (fcf_trend, margin_trend, revenue_trend) held or grew, and none went backwards.
Fundamentals appearing intact does not establish that the decline will reverse. Filings lag the market, and the price may reflect information that has not reached a filing yet. What would change this classification
Fair-value inputs, method by method
How the rank was computed
Blended score 79.3/100. Cheapness is a percentile against 10 peers in Industrial Distribution (industry), built on 6 valuation metric(s). Quality used 7 component(s). The price sits 24% below its 52-week high. Purification: 0.00% of dividends and gains — see the full receipts in the portal report. |
|||||||||
| 11 | WAY ↗ · Waystar Holding Corp | $28.14 | $41.82–$87.69 mid $64.75 | +130% | 82 | 54 | fundamentals intact confidence 85/100 | compliant | + watch |
Show the work for WAYWhat the filings showThe share price declined materially while the filed fundamentals held or grew. This is a description of what the filings and the price panel show, and nothing more. The price fell at least 20% from its 52-week high while 3 filed fundamental trends (fcf_trend, margin_trend, revenue_trend) held or grew, and none went backwards.
Fundamentals appearing intact does not establish that the decline will reverse. Filings lag the market, and the price may reflect information that has not reached a filing yet. What would change this classification
Fair-value inputs, method by method
Methods excluded, and why
How the rank was computed
Blended score 79.0/100. Cheapness is a percentile against 9 peers in Health Information Services (industry), built on 5 valuation metric(s). Quality used 7 component(s). The price sits 25% below its 52-week high. Purification: 0.13% of dividends and gains — see the full receipts in the portal report. |
|||||||||
| 12 | XYL ↗ · Xylem Inc. | $97.26 | $133.72–$180.33 mid $134.84 | +39% | 84 | 60 | fundamentals intact confidence 85/100 | compliant | + watch |
Show the work for XYLWhat the filings showThe share price declined materially while the filed fundamentals held or grew. This is a description of what the filings and the price panel show, and nothing more. The price fell at least 20% from its 52-week high while 3 filed fundamental trends (fcf_trend, margin_trend, revenue_trend) held or grew, and none went backwards.
Fundamentals appearing intact does not establish that the decline will reverse. Filings lag the market, and the price may reflect information that has not reached a filing yet. What would change this classification
Fair-value inputs, method by method
How the rank was computed
Blended score 77.1/100. Cheapness is a percentile against 36 peers in Specialty Industrial Machinery (industry), built on 7 valuation metric(s). Quality used 7 component(s). The price sits 35% below its 52-week high. Purification: 0.30% of dividends and gains — see the full receipts in the portal report. |
|||||||||
| 13 | SARO ↗ · StandardAero | $25.13 | $33.66–$39.88 mid $33.96 | +35% | 86 | 48 | sector wide confidence 85/100 | compliant | + watch |
Show the work for SAROWhat the filings showThe decline is close to the sector cohort's own median decline, so the cohort — not something specific to this company — accounts for most of what the price did. The drawdown sits within 5 percentage points of the cohort median, so the cohort explains the move before anything company-specific needs to.
What would change this classification
Fair-value inputs, method by method
How the rank was computed
Blended score 73.1/100. Cheapness is a percentile against 26 peers in Aerospace & Defense (industry), built on 7 valuation metric(s). Quality used 7 component(s). The price sits 24% below its 52-week high. Purification: 0.00% of dividends and gains — see the full receipts in the portal report. |
|||||||||
| 14 | BDC ↗ · Belden Inc. | $107.44 | $181.00–$241.44 mid $209.25 | +95% | 83 | 51 | sector wide confidence 45/100 | compliant | + watch |
Show the work for BDCWhat the filings showThe decline is close to the sector cohort's own median decline, so the cohort — not something specific to this company — accounts for most of what the price did. The drawdown sits within 5 percentage points of the cohort median, so the cohort explains the move before anything company-specific needs to.
What would change this classification
Fair-value inputs, method by method
How the rank was computed
Blended score 72.9/100. Cheapness is a percentile against 11 peers in Communication Equipment (industry), built on 6 valuation metric(s). Quality used 7 component(s). The price sits 29% below its 52-week high. Purification: 0.00% of dividends and gains — see the full receipts in the portal report. |
|||||||||
Rank is a weighted blend of four disclosed scores — cheapness against the peer cohort, business quality, confidence in the discount classification, and distance to the central peer-relative fair-value estimate. It is a sort order for a research list. It is not a forecast, not a price target, and not a ranking of expected return.
How many names each gate removed
| Stage | Names remaining |
|---|---|
| Universe | 1506 |
| With usable market data | 1505 |
| Ranked on cheapness (≥ 3 metrics, real peer cohort) | 1501 |
| Working set (top 150 by cheapness) | 150 |
| Passed the quality floor (45.0) | 99 |
| Discount classified sector_wide or fundamentals_intact | 15 |
| Passed the Sharia screen | 14 |
| Published | 14 |
Dropped at the diagnosis gate: 24 insufficient evidence, 34 fundamentals deteriorating, 26 leverage stress. Dropped at the Sharia gate: 1 non compliant.
How past screens have done
3 published list(s) are at least 30 days old and are scored below, each from its own publication date to today, equal weighted and with every published name still counted.
| Published | Days | Names | Screen | SPY | SPUS | Up / down |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-11-03 | 0 | 14 | too early — no return shown | |||
2026-11-03 — the whole list, winners and losersPublished 0 day(s) ago. That is under 30 days, which is too short to mean anything about a screen — over a window this brief the number is market noise, not evidence. No return is shown for this list; it becomes reportable in 30 day(s), whatever it says then. |
||||||
| 2026-11-02 | 1 | 16 | too early — no return shown | |||
2026-11-02 — the whole list, winners and losersPublished 1 day(s) ago. That is under 30 days, which is too short to mean anything about a screen — over a window this brief the number is market noise, not evidence. No return is shown for this list; it becomes reportable in 29 day(s), whatever it says then. |
||||||
| 2026-10-30 | 4 | 14 | too early — no return shown | |||
2026-10-30 — the whole list, winners and losersPublished 4 day(s) ago. That is under 30 days, which is too short to mean anything about a screen — over a window this brief the number is market noise, not evidence. No return is shown for this list; it becomes reportable in 26 day(s), whatever it says then. |
||||||
| 2026-10-29 | 5 | 19 | too early — no return shown | |||
2026-10-29 — the whole list, winners and losersPublished 5 day(s) ago. That is under 30 days, which is too short to mean anything about a screen — over a window this brief the number is market noise, not evidence. No return is shown for this list; it becomes reportable in 25 day(s), whatever it says then. |
||||||
| 2026-10-28 | 6 | 16 | too early — no return shown | |||
2026-10-28 — the whole list, winners and losersPublished 6 day(s) ago. That is under 30 days, which is too short to mean anything about a screen — over a window this brief the number is market noise, not evidence. No return is shown for this list; it becomes reportable in 24 day(s), whatever it says then. |
||||||
| 2026-10-27 | 7 | 15 | too early — no return shown | |||
2026-10-27 — the whole list, winners and losersPublished 7 day(s) ago. That is under 30 days, which is too short to mean anything about a screen — over a window this brief the number is market noise, not evidence. No return is shown for this list; it becomes reportable in 23 day(s), whatever it says then. |
||||||
| 2026-10-26 | 8 | 16 | too early — no return shown | |||
2026-10-26 — the whole list, winners and losersPublished 8 day(s) ago. That is under 30 days, which is too short to mean anything about a screen — over a window this brief the number is market noise, not evidence. No return is shown for this list; it becomes reportable in 22 day(s), whatever it says then. |
||||||
| 2026-10-23 | 11 | 15 | too early — no return shown | |||
2026-10-23 — the whole list, winners and losersPublished 11 day(s) ago. That is under 30 days, which is too short to mean anything about a screen — over a window this brief the number is market noise, not evidence. No return is shown for this list; it becomes reportable in 19 day(s), whatever it says then. |
||||||
| 2026-10-22 | 12 | 16 | too early — no return shown | |||
2026-10-22 — the whole list, winners and losersPublished 12 day(s) ago. That is under 30 days, which is too short to mean anything about a screen — over a window this brief the number is market noise, not evidence. No return is shown for this list; it becomes reportable in 18 day(s), whatever it says then. |
||||||
| 2026-10-21 | 13 | 17 | too early — no return shown | |||
2026-10-21 — the whole list, winners and losersPublished 13 day(s) ago. That is under 30 days, which is too short to mean anything about a screen — over a window this brief the number is market noise, not evidence. No return is shown for this list; it becomes reportable in 17 day(s), whatever it says then. |
||||||
| 2026-10-20 | 14 | 17 | too early — no return shown | |||
2026-10-20 — the whole list, winners and losersPublished 14 day(s) ago. That is under 30 days, which is too short to mean anything about a screen — over a window this brief the number is market noise, not evidence. No return is shown for this list; it becomes reportable in 16 day(s), whatever it says then. |
||||||
| 2026-10-19 | 15 | 17 | too early — no return shown | |||
2026-10-19 — the whole list, winners and losersPublished 15 day(s) ago. That is under 30 days, which is too short to mean anything about a screen — over a window this brief the number is market noise, not evidence. No return is shown for this list; it becomes reportable in 15 day(s), whatever it says then. |
||||||
| 2026-10-16 | 18 | 15 | too early — no return shown | |||
2026-10-16 — the whole list, winners and losersPublished 18 day(s) ago. That is under 30 days, which is too short to mean anything about a screen — over a window this brief the number is market noise, not evidence. No return is shown for this list; it becomes reportable in 12 day(s), whatever it says then. |
||||||
| 2026-10-15 | 19 | 17 | too early — no return shown | |||
2026-10-15 — the whole list, winners and losersPublished 19 day(s) ago. That is under 30 days, which is too short to mean anything about a screen — over a window this brief the number is market noise, not evidence. No return is shown for this list; it becomes reportable in 11 day(s), whatever it says then. |
||||||
| 2026-10-14 | 20 | 16 | too early — no return shown | |||
2026-10-14 — the whole list, winners and losersPublished 20 day(s) ago. That is under 30 days, which is too short to mean anything about a screen — over a window this brief the number is market noise, not evidence. No return is shown for this list; it becomes reportable in 10 day(s), whatever it says then. |
||||||
| 2026-10-12 | 22 | 15 | too early — no return shown | |||
2026-10-12 — the whole list, winners and losersPublished 22 day(s) ago. That is under 30 days, which is too short to mean anything about a screen — over a window this brief the number is market noise, not evidence. No return is shown for this list; it becomes reportable in 8 day(s), whatever it says then. |
||||||
| 2026-10-09 | 25 | 15 | too early — no return shown | |||
2026-10-09 — the whole list, winners and losersPublished 25 day(s) ago. That is under 30 days, which is too short to mean anything about a screen — over a window this brief the number is market noise, not evidence. No return is shown for this list; it becomes reportable in 5 day(s), whatever it says then. |
||||||
| 2026-10-08 | 26 | 16 | too early — no return shown | |||
2026-10-08 — the whole list, winners and losersPublished 26 day(s) ago. That is under 30 days, which is too short to mean anything about a screen — over a window this brief the number is market noise, not evidence. No return is shown for this list; it becomes reportable in 4 day(s), whatever it says then. |
||||||
| 2026-10-07 | 27 | 19 | too early — no return shown | |||
2026-10-07 — the whole list, winners and losersPublished 27 day(s) ago. That is under 30 days, which is too short to mean anything about a screen — over a window this brief the number is market noise, not evidence. No return is shown for this list; it becomes reportable in 3 day(s), whatever it says then. |
||||||
| 2026-10-06 | 28 | 18 | too early — no return shown | |||
2026-10-06 — the whole list, winners and losersPublished 28 day(s) ago. That is under 30 days, which is too short to mean anything about a screen — over a window this brief the number is market noise, not evidence. No return is shown for this list; it becomes reportable in 2 day(s), whatever it says then. |
||||||
| 2026-10-05 | 29 | 18 | too early — no return shown | |||
2026-10-05 — the whole list, winners and losersPublished 29 day(s) ago. That is under 30 days, which is too short to mean anything about a screen — over a window this brief the number is market noise, not evidence. No return is shown for this list; it becomes reportable in 1 day(s), whatever it says then. |
||||||
| 2026-10-02 | 32 | 17 | +10.5% | -1.6% | -3.5% | 14 / 3 |
2026-10-02 — the whole list, winners and losersPublished 32 days ago. This is what the list has done since, equal weighted, with every name that was published still in the arithmetic.
|
||||||
| 2026-10-01 | 33 | 16 | +11.1% | -1.4% | -3.2% | 13 / 3 |
2026-10-01 — the whole list, winners and losersPublished 33 days ago. This is what the list has done since, equal weighted, with every name that was published still in the arithmetic.
|
||||||
| 2026-09-30 | 34 | 17 | +7.3% | -1.6% | -3.3% | 12 / 5 |
2026-09-30 — the whole list, winners and losersPublished 34 days ago. This is what the list has done since, equal weighted, with every name that was published still in the arithmetic.
|
||||||
Equal weighted, no rebalancing, and every name that was published stays in the arithmetic — including the ones that fell. Returns are price returns from the published entry price to the latest close in the same panel that built the screen; dividends are not included on either the screen or the benchmarks, so both sides are measured the same way. Past results describe what already happened and establish nothing about what happens next.
Each list is measured from its own publication date to today, so the windows overlap and share market conditions. The average across lists is an average of overlapping single-list returns — it is not a portfolio return and must not be read as one.
Verdicts and scores are Daleel methodology calculations from SEC filings — how this screen is built · top performers with verdicts · full receipts for any name in the portal. Not investment advice.