InvestingPro claims, checked

Home · Research tools · Claims checked

Short answer

Investing.com publishes a set of round numbers about InvestingPro: seventeen valuation models, more than a thousand screener metrics, tens of thousands of instruments, a money-back guarantee. Most of them are repeated across review sites without anyone opening the product. We opened it, counted what was there for one company on one day, and wrote both numbers down side by side.

Two claims held. One was a real conflation of two different figures that Investing.com itself separates on its own pricing page, and which reviewers merge constantly. One counted figure came out materially below the published one. And one widely repeated promise does not appear in any document Investing.com publishes.

The five claims

Claim, as published	What we counted	Verdict
Averages 17 valuation models Investing.com pricing page	14 models active for AAPL, from a library of 19 available. Earnings Power Value sat unchecked by default and was excluded from the average.	Below for AAPL
1,200+ metrics widely repeated as a screener figure	Investing.com's own pricing page separates 1,200+ stock data metrics from a screener that filters through 167. No metric count is displayed anywhere in the screener interface.	Conflated
180,000+ instruments Investing.com pricing page, on WarrenAI	The screener reported a universe of 152,080 instruments. Different figures may count different things, and the interface does not say which.	Below as counted
10 years of historical data Investing.com pricing page	Ten years exactly, on the Pro+ tier we tested. The assistant stated the same ceiling unprompted in its own response footer.	Matched
7 day money-back guarantee appears on affiliate pages, not on Investing.com	Absent from both the official terms and the support article updated 9 August 2026. Both state the service is non-refundable.	Not in the terms

The valuation models, counted

This is the claim worth understanding properly, because the number moves. Fair Value is not one model producing one figure. It is a library of models, of which some run for a given company and some do not, depending on the data available. A dividend discount model needs a dividend. So the count is a property of the company, not of the product.

For Apple on 10 August 2026 the library showed 19 templates and 14 were active. Their outputs ranged from $204.85 to $293.22, averaging $267.86, against a price of $306.31 at the moment of capture. Every template was marked as updated within the previous sixteen hours, so the refresh is daily. The full review walks the same company through every tool in sequence.

The honest reading of the gap between 17 and 14 is that the marketing figure is an average across companies and ours is a count for one. Both can be true. What is not defensible is a review that repeats seventeen as though it verified it. We publish the counted number with the company named and the date attached, and if you check a different company you should expect a different count.

The metric count, which nobody separates

This one is not really Investing.com's error. Its own pricing page distinguishes two things: the depth of stock data available on a company, which is where the 1,200+ figure sits, and the number of fields the screener can filter on, which is 167. Those are different products doing different jobs. Third-party reviews merge them routinely, and the merged version is what circulates.

Inside the screener itself no count is displayed at all. Metrics are grouped into categories, Growth, Efficiency, Financials, Forecast, Predictions, Health, Technical, ETF, Finance and Misc, with no total shown anywhere. So the 167 figure is Investing.com's, not ours; we could not confirm or refute it from the interface, and we say so rather than repeating it as observed fact.

The refund claim

A seven day money-back guarantee appears on a number of pages that earn commission on InvestingPro subscriptions. It does not appear in Investing.com's terms and conditions, which state in capital letters that no refund is due once a subscription is completed and that the subscriber waives any right of withdrawal in exchange for immediate access. It does not appear in the support article on refunds either, updated 9 August 2026, which states the services are provided on a non-refundable basis.

What is available is cancellation. Auto-renewal can be cancelled at any time, up to 24 hours before the billing date, after which access continues to the end of the period already paid for. The path is the InvestingPro homepage, the username icon at the top right, Plan Summary, Cancel Subscription. Deactivating or deleting the Investing.com account does not cancel the subscription, and purchases made through an app store must be cancelled there instead.

It is possible a guarantee is offered at checkout despite the published terms. We have not seen a checkout screen, so we do not say either way. If one appears at the next check, the screenshot becomes the source and this section gets updated and dated rather than quietly rewritten.

What held up

A page that only records what fell short is a different kind of dishonest, so here is the other half of the same session. None of this is a favour to the vendor, it is what the checks returned.

• The underlying data was right every time. Across twelve companies checked over three dates, the valuation arithmetic on Investing.com's own display was correct in every single case, and the detailed body text of the assistant's answers was usually right too. Where we found contradictions, they sat in the summarising layer on top, not in the numbers underneath. Detail in the WarrenAI review.
• Cited figures checked out against the filings. Apple's FY2025 revenue of $416.16B and a quarterly EPS of $2.02 against $1.89 expected both matched the primary source. Two clean checks are not proof of a clean system, but they are two more than most tools would survive.
• The assistant declared its own ceiling unprompted. Asked nothing about limits, it stated in its response footer that historical data runs to ten years on the tier tested. A tool that volunteers what it cannot see is behaving better than one that quietly fills the gap.
• Investing.com names the weaknesses of its own backtests. Its methodology page calls the flagship chart hypothetical, and its FAQ states plainly that backtested results represent hypothetical rather than actual trades, that a backtest can be tuned until past returns look optimal, and that survivorship, look-ahead and restatement bias exist with mitigations that cannot be guaranteed to have removed them. Very few vendors publish that about their own headline numbers, and it deserves saying. How to read those figures is covered on the ProPicks AI review.
• The 1,200 versus 167 confusion is not theirs. Investing.com's own pricing page keeps the two figures apart and labels them correctly. The merged version circulating everywhere is the work of reviewers who did not read carefully.
• Every model is shown separately, and refreshed daily. Fair Value does not hand you a single number to trust blindly. All fourteen active outputs for Apple were visible individually, from $204.85 to $293.22, each timestamped as updated within the previous sixteen hours. A tool that shows you a $88 spread between its own models is being more honest with you than one that shows a single confident figure.
• Ten years of history, exactly as advertised. The one claim in the table above that we could check precisely, and it was precise.

The full review scores the product 4.1 out of 5, which is where the balance of the session actually landed. This page exists to check the round numbers, not to reach a verdict on the tool.

Figures we deliberately do not publish

The claims above are the ones we could put against something. A larger set circulates with no consistent source at all, and those appear nowhere on this site. Monthly user counts arrive as 46 million, 50 million, 60 million and 100 million depending on which page you read. Paid subscriber counts as 150,000 or 300,000. Instrument counts as 60,000, 72,000, 135,000 or 180,000. Flagship strategy returns since November 2023 as 147.09%, 177%, 182.4% and 184.79%.

The house rule is to cite the lowest figure from the most official source, or omit entirely. In most of these cases omitting is better, because the number adds nothing a reader can act on. The full list, with every value we found in circulation, is in the verification record below.

How this was checked

One logged-in session, 10 August 2026, one company followed through every tool in sequence, with Apple used as the anchor throughout for continuity. Access was provided through an affiliate programme and Investing.com had no editorial review of anything here. Prices moved between $313.33 and $306.24 across the session, so captures taken at different moments differ by a few dollars, and that is disclosed rather than smoothed over.

Every figure on this page traces to a line in the InvestingPro verification record, which lists each observation with its date, the sources read, and the figures deliberately excluded. All dated claims here are re-checked on a 90 day cycle, next due 8 November 2026. Method in full at how we test; commercial relationships at how we make money.

Where this leaves the product

Two claims below what we counted, one conflation that is mostly the fault of reviewers rather than the vendor, one exact match, and one promise circulating on affiliate pages that the vendor's own documents contradict. None of that makes InvestingPro a bad research tool, and the full review reaches a fairly positive verdict on the data itself.

What it does mean is that the round numbers are marketing rather than specification. If the seventeen models or the thousand metrics are the reason you are considering it, check the count for the companies you actually follow before paying, because for one of the largest listed companies in the world the count was fourteen. If that pushes you elsewhere, six alternatives are priced at source, and we ran the same count against the free tier of Stock Analysis, where the advertised figure and the counted one agreed.