New · 16,265 stocks are re-scored daily. The score updates automatically.
Strategy profile

Altman Z-Score: Balance-Sheet Stress Test – Backtest & Top Stocks 2026

Bankruptcies announce themselves in the balance sheet long before the share price shows it: the Z-score condenses five ratios into a default probability.

Save the strategy and StockScorer checks its rules for you every day. You'll get a heads-up whenever a stock crosses the upper or lower score threshold.

✓ Refreshed daily✓ Rule-based: no black box✓ Fully customisable
Total return in the backtestAvg. +0.6 % p.a.
+5.7 %

MSCI World over the same period: +240.1 %

Start: Strategy 100Q2 2016: Strategy 100Q3 2016: Strategy 91Q4 2016: Strategy 88Q1 2017: Strategy 86Q2 2017: Strategy 87Q3 2017: Strategy 88Q4 2017: Strategy 80Q1 2018: Strategy 81Q2 2018: Strategy 83Q3 2018: Strategy 90Q4 2018: Strategy 74Q1 2019: Strategy 89Q2 2019: Strategy 80Q3 2019: Strategy 75Q4 2019: Strategy 83Q1 2020: Strategy 67Q2 2020: Strategy 83Q3 2020: Strategy 98Q4 2020: Strategy 107Q1 2021: Strategy 108Q2 2021: Strategy 109Q3 2021: Strategy 113Q4 2021: Strategy 111Q1 2022: Strategy 98Q2 2022: Strategy 82Q3 2022: Strategy 84Q4 2022: Strategy 87Q1 2023: Strategy 91Q2 2023: Strategy 93Q3 2023: Strategy 88Q4 2023: Strategy 90Q1 2024: Strategy 93Q2 2024: Strategy 90Q3 2024: Strategy 95Q4 2024: Strategy 101Q1 2025: Strategy 98Q2 2025: Strategy 95Q3 2025: Strategy 110Q4 2025: Strategy 113Q1 2026: Strategy 108Q2 2026: Strategy 10645124204283362StartQ1 2021Q1 2026Q2 2026StrategyBenchmark (MSCI World)

Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future results.

+0.6 %Return p.a. (backtest)
-12.5 %vs. MSCI World p.a.
16,265Stocks analysed
SmallMidLargeCap classes
How the profile stands today

What the profile looks like today

As of 09/30/2026
6,151High
5,939Medium
4,175Low
Classification in the universe
High 38 %Medium 37 %Low 26 %
Distribution of scores in the market
-3
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
+3
Score distribution as a data table
ScoreNumber of stocks
-34,175
-20
-10
00
+15,939
+20
+36,151
Countries of the high-match stocks
US 25%KR 15%CN 15%CA 10%IN 5%Other 30%
How rules turn into a score

How the scoring works

Every stock runs through the same disclosed rules. The points add up to a score, traceable down to the individual rule.

01
Rules

Each rule checks a metric against a threshold, for example ROE above 15 %.

02
Points & weighting

You decide how much each rule counts: from +1 to +3 or −1 to −3.

03
Score & classification

The sum is the score. That gives three classes: high, medium, low match.

Low match
< 1 points
Medium match
1 – 2 points
High match
≥ 3 points

These terms describe only the match with the criteria, not a recommendation to buy or sell.

What the strategy measures a stock against

What is behind this strategy?

01
How far away is bankruptcy?

The Z-score translates five balance-sheet ratios into a 24-month default probability.

02
Safe zone or distress?

Manufacturers: above 2.99 safe, below 1.81 acute danger. Other non-financials: above 2.6 safe, below 1.1 acute danger (Z'' model).

03
Does substance back the growth?

Retained earnings weigh heavily: pure hope stocks without history fall through.

04
Is the metric applicable?

Financials run on balance-sheet leverage by design; they are classified neutrally instead of wrongly punished.

Excerpt from the rule profile

These exact rules run over every stock daily.

4 of 7 rules
Group:AND
+3 pts
Altman Z-Scoreisat least2.99
All of these conditions must be met
Group:AND
+1 pts
All of these conditions must be met
Group:AND
−3 pts
Altman Z-Scoreisless than1.81
All of these conditions must be met
Group:AND
+3 pts
Altman Z'' (non-manufacturing)isat least2.6
All of these conditions must be met
+ 3 more rules in the profile

After a free sign-up: the full profile in the rule editor to copy, adjust thresholds and save as your own starting profile.

See & copy all rules
What the backtest shows, and what it does not

How has the profile performed?

Strategy: +5.7%Benchmark (MSCI World): +240.1%
Start: Strategy 100Q2 2016: Strategy 100Q3 2016: Strategy 91Q4 2016: Strategy 88Q1 2017: Strategy 86Q2 2017: Strategy 87Q3 2017: Strategy 88Q4 2017: Strategy 80Q1 2018: Strategy 81Q2 2018: Strategy 83Q3 2018: Strategy 90Q4 2018: Strategy 74Q1 2019: Strategy 89Q2 2019: Strategy 80Q3 2019: Strategy 75Q4 2019: Strategy 83Q1 2020: Strategy 67Q2 2020: Strategy 83Q3 2020: Strategy 98Q4 2020: Strategy 107Q1 2021: Strategy 108Q2 2021: Strategy 109Q3 2021: Strategy 113Q4 2021: Strategy 111Q1 2022: Strategy 98Q2 2022: Strategy 82Q3 2022: Strategy 84Q4 2022: Strategy 87Q1 2023: Strategy 91Q2 2023: Strategy 93Q3 2023: Strategy 88Q4 2023: Strategy 90Q1 2024: Strategy 93Q2 2024: Strategy 90Q3 2024: Strategy 95Q4 2024: Strategy 101Q1 2025: Strategy 98Q2 2025: Strategy 95Q3 2025: Strategy 110Q4 2025: Strategy 113Q1 2026: Strategy 108Q2 2026: Strategy 10645124204283362StartQ2 2017Q3 2018Q4 2019Q1 2021Q2 2022Q3 2023Q4 2024Q1 2026Q2 2026StrategyBenchmark (MSCI World)

The backtest shows a total return of +5.7%. The MSCI World reaches +240.1% over the same period.

+0.6%Return p.a.
+13.0%Benchmark p.a.
-33.0%Largest decline
+0.03Sharpe Ratio

Survivorship-free since June 30, 2015: the index composition is applied point-in-time.

Historical period, quarterly rebalancing, no taxes or fees. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future results.

The way of working this profile suits

Who is this strategy for?

For risk-aware investors as a pre-filter before any other strategy: before valuation or growth matter, survival should be secured. Particularly valuable for small caps and optically cheap stocks whose low price may reflect default risk.

Adopt, customise & track this strategy
What people usually ask before starting

Frequently asked questions

Is this based on the Altman Z-score?
Yes, for manufacturing-adjacent sectors the metric follows the original model for listed industrial companies published by Edward Altman in 1968; for all other non-financials, StockScorer uses Altman's own Z'' model from 1995, which he developed himself for exactly these cases. The point allocation (grey zone +1) is a documented StockScorer refinement.
Why are financials not assessed?
Banks and insurers run on high balance-sheet leverage by design: the Z-score formula would classify them all as distressed even though the leverage there is regulated and intended. Neutral treatment is the honest answer.
Is this a recommendation to act?
No. StockScorer provides automated, rule-based assessments for information only. Nothing here replaces individual financial advice or constitutes a solicitation to buy or sell securities.
Can I change the zone boundaries?
Yes. After free registration you can copy the profile and adjust it in the rule editor: zone boundaries, point values and the financials exemption are fully configurable.

Method & Criteria

The Z-score was developed by Edward Altman in 1968 and remains the best-known bankruptcy prediction model: a discriminant analysis condenses five balance-sheet ratios (working capital, retained earnings, operating earnings power, market value versus liabilities and asset turnover) into a single figure for the default risk of the next 24 months. Altman himself explicitly limits this 1968 model to manufacturing companies; for all other non-financials (trade, services, technology) he followed up in 1995 with the Z'' model, which drops the sales term. StockScorer therefore applies whichever model fits the sector: the classic Z-score for manufacturers, Z'' for the rest. Above the respective upper zone the safe zone begins, below the lower zone the distress zone with acute bankruptcy risk. Both models punish young companies without an earnings history hard: exactly what makes them excellent filters against hype stocks without substance. For banks and insurers, neither metric is structurally applicable; they are classified neutrally.

How does the Z-score stress test work?

For manufacturing-adjacent sectors (industrials, basic materials, cyclical and defensive consumer, energy), StockScorer uses the classic Altman Z-score, weighted from five ratios: working capital to total assets (liquidity), retained earnings to total assets (accumulated substance), EBIT to total assets (earnings power), market capitalisation to total liabilities (market buffer) and sales to total assets (asset turnover). A value above 2.99 signals the safe zone (+3), 1.81 to 2.99 the grey zone (+1), below 1.81 the distress zone (−3).

For all other non-financial, non-real-estate sectors (trade, services, technology, health care), Altman's own 1995 Z'' model applies instead since the fidelity round, dropping the sales term, with its own zones: above 2.6 safe (+3), 1.1 to 2.6 grey zone (+1), below 1.1 distress (−3). The thresholds are deliberately identical for all size classes: a high bankruptcy risk is as unacceptable for a large cap as for a small cap (risk metric, universal). Financials, real-estate companies and stocks without a computable Z-score or Z'' park at +1 in the middle zone: not assessed is not the same as risky.

The zones at a glance

Manufacturers (classic Z-score): > 2.99 safe zone (+3), 1.81–2.99 grey zone (+1), < 1.81 distress zone (−3).

Other non-financials (Z'' model, 1995): > 2.6 safe zone (+3), 1.1–2.6 grey zone (+1), < 1.1 distress zone (−3).

Financial/real-estate company or Z-score/Z'' not computable: neutral middle classification (+1).

Strengths, limits and deviations from the original

The strength: the Z-score is purely balance-sheet based and thus immune to story and sentiment; in studies it flagged a large share of bankruptcies one to two years in advance. As a gatekeeper before value strategies it prevents the classic mistake of investing in a "cheap" company whose price simply reflects its default risk.

Fidelity update as of 23 August 2026: Altman himself calibrated the 1968 model only for manufacturing companies; StockScorer now applies it only there and uses Altman's own Z'' model (1995, no sales factor, different zone boundaries of 2.6/1.1) for all other non-financials. Previously the classic Z-score ran sector-independently for all non-financials, which was systematically too conservative for services and technology names with lean balance sheets. One documented refinement remains: the grey zone earns +1 instead of 0 points here so it becomes visible as a middle classification; in the original point system it would be indistinguishable from the lower zone.

Limits: neither model is defined for financials (hence their neutral treatment). The sector assignment between the two models follows a fixed list of manufacturing-adjacent industries; edge cases (e.g. conglomerates) may be assessed more accurately under the other model.

Who is this strategy for?

For anyone wanting to systematically sort out default risks, as a standalone screen or as a risk gate flanking other strategies (the StockScorer Score uses exactly this gate as a knockout).