The Buckler Score is a single, standardized measure of how a security performs against a defined set of criteria. It converts raw metrics - each with its own units, direction, and scale - into a common 0-100 score, so that returns, valuation ratios, risk measures, and cost figures can all be compared and combined fairly into one composite result.
Every metric is scored the same way: by measuring where its actual value sits within a defined minimum and maximum range, then weighting that result by the metric's relative importance. The same underlying formula applies everywhere - what changes from metric to metric, and from asset class to asset class, are the thresholds and the weights.
This page walks through the methodology in three parts: 1, how the scoring works - the raw score and weighted score calculations that apply to every metric; 2, the equity scoring model - the specific components, weights, and ranges used to score individual stocks; and 3, the mutual fund and ETF scoring model - the equivalent model for pooled products. A frequently asked questions section closes out the page.
When a metric has no value, it is simply left out - no score is generated for it, and no placeholder or estimate is substituted in its place. A mutual fund that has been in production for less than a year, for example, will not yet have a 1-year, 3-year, or 5-year return figure. Rather than guess at those numbers, Buckler omits them from the calculation entirely. The weighted scores for the metrics that do have data are summed as usual, which means the overall score is reduced accordingly - not because the security performed poorly on the missing metrics, but because it has not yet accumulated the track record needed to be scored on them. In practice, this means the model disadvantages newer securities relative to otherwise-identical ones with a longer history, which is a known and deliberate trade-off of scoring only on verified, primary data rather than filling gaps with assumptions.
Future development: the ranges, weights, and metrics described on this page reflect Buckler's current default model. Future versions of Buckler will allow firms to customize the model itself - adjusting which metrics are scored, the minimum and maximum thresholds applied to each, and the weight each metric and category carries - so the methodology can be tailored to a firm's own investment policy rather than relying solely on Buckler's defaults.
Every metric Buckler tracks is converted into a standardized score using the same underlying model: a score range with a defined minimum and maximum. Where the actual value falls between those two bounds determines how many points it earns - move up the scale toward the maximum and the score rises with it; move down toward the minimum and it falls. That range is set per metric (for example, a Revenue Growth range might run from -10% to 25%), but the mechanism that converts a position on the range into a score is identical everywhere. This is done in two steps.
The first step places the actual value on its defined range and reads off where it lands as a score out of 100:
Used where a larger actual value indicates stronger performance (e.g. Revenue Growth, Return on Equity):
Used where a smaller actual value indicates stronger performance (e.g. P/E Ratio, Debt-to-Equity, MER):
In both cases the relationship is a straight line - every unit of improvement between the floor and ceiling is recognised equally. Scores are capped at 100 and floored at 0 regardless of how far outside the range the actual value falls.
Range: −10 (min) to 25 (max). Actual result: 14.
( 14 − (−10) ) ÷ ( 25 − (−10) ) × 100 = 69
The range itself is a hard boundary, not a suggestion. Performance beyond the maximum earns no extra points, and performance below the minimum loses no further points - both are simply capped at the range’s edge. Drag past −10 or 25 below to see it happen.
Each metric is assigned a weight reflecting its relative importance. The raw score from Step 1 is multiplied by that weight to produce a weighted contribution:
The weighted scores for all metrics within a category are summed to produce the category score.
The final Buckler Score combines the category scores from Step 2 into a single composite figure. Each category - Price Performance, Valuation, Financials, and Growth for equities; Performance, Risk, and Management for mutual funds and ETFs - is assigned a predetermined weight reflecting how much it should influence the overall score. Every category score is multiplied by its weight, and the results are summed:
Category weights are fixed in advance based on how predictive each category is of long-term quality, and they differ between equities and mutual funds/ETFs to reflect what matters most for each asset type. The weights for a given asset type always sum to 100%, so the resulting Buckler Score sits on the same 0-100 scale as every metric and category score that feeds it.
Price Performance scores 74 (20% weight), Valuation scores 88 (25% weight), Financials scores 61 (35% weight), Growth scores 95 (20% weight).
( 74 × 0.20 ) + ( 88 × 0.25 ) + ( 61 × 0.35 ) + ( 95 × 0.20 ) = 77.15
The predetermined category weights for each asset type are set out where they're applied: see The Buckler Score under the Equity Scoring Model, and The Buckler Score under the Mutual Fund and ETF Scoring Model.
The equity score is based on four components: Price Performance, Valuation, Financials, and Growth.
| Metric | Weight | Range | Actual | Raw Score | Weighted Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Month Return | 5% | -8% – 8% | % | – | – |
| 1 Year Return | 25% | -20% – 40% | % | – | – |
| 3 Year Return | 35% | 0% – 25% | % | – | – |
| 5 Year Return | 35% | 3% – 20% | % | – | – |
| Price Performance Score | – |
Lower scores are better - a P/E ratio of 4.5 scores 100 points and a P/B ratio of 7.5 scores 0. All values are based on trailing 12-month data (TTM).
| Metric | Weight | Range | Actual | Raw Score | Weighted Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price/Earnings Ratio | 40% | 5 – 30 | – | – | |
| Price/Book Ratio | 30% | 0.5 – 5 | – | – | |
| Price/Earnings-to-Growth Ratio (PEG) | 30% | 0.5 – 2.5 | – | – | |
| Valuation Score | – |
Return on Equity and Current Ratio use the higher-is-better calculation; Debt to Equity uses lower-is-better, so a higher debt-to-equity value generates a lower score.
| Metric | Weight | Range | Actual | Raw Score | Weighted Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Return on Equity | 50% | 5% – 40% | % | – | – |
| Debt to Equity Ratio | 25% | 0 – 1.5 | – | – | |
| Current Ratio | 25% | 1 – 3 | – | – | |
| Financial Health Score | – |
Both metrics use the 3-year average.
| Metric | Weight | Range | Actual | Raw Score | Weighted Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue Growth | 50% | 0% – 25% | % | – | – |
| Earnings Growth | 50% | 0% – 25% | % | – | – |
| Growth Score | – |
The Buckler Score combines four components - Price Performance, Valuation, Financials, and Growth - into a single composite score. Each component is individually weighted, and the results are summed to produce the final score.
| Category | Weight | Score | Weighted Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price Performance | 20% | – | – |
| Valuation | 25% | – | – |
| Financials | 35% | – | – |
| Growth | 20% | – | – |
| Buckler Score | – |
Mutual fund and ETF scores are based on three components: Performance, Risk, and Management.
3- and 5-year performance are annualized. Alpha and Sharpe Ratio are calculated on 3-year performance.
| Metric | Weight | Range | Actual | Raw Score | Weighted Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Year Return | 10% | -15% – 35% | % | – | – |
| 3 Year Return | 20% | 0% – 22% | % | – | – |
| 5 Year Return | 15% | 3% – 18% | % | – | – |
| Sharpe Ratio | 30% | 0 – 2 | – | – | |
| Alpha | 25% | -2% – 4% | % | – | – |
| Performance Score | – |
All three measures are calculated on 3-year performance. Standard Deviation and Beta use lower-is-better - a standard deviation of 2.5% scores 100 points.
| Metric | Weight | Range | Actual | Raw Score | Weighted Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Standard Deviation | 40% | 3% – 25% | % | – | – |
| Beta | 30% | 0.6 – 1.2 | – | – | |
| Maximum Drawdown | 30% | -40% – -5% | % | – | – |
| Risk Score | – |
MER and Downside use lower-is-better - a lower value on either scores higher.
| Metric | Weight | Range | Actual | Raw Score | Weighted Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MER | 30% | 0.3% – 1.5% | % | – | – |
| AUM | 10% | $100M – $10B | $B | – | – |
| 3 Year Batting Average | 20% | 0.4 – 0.9 | – | – | |
| 3 Year Upside | 20% | 85% – 115% | % | – | – |
| 3 Year Downside | 20% | 70% – 110% | % | – | – |
| Management Score | – |
The Buckler Score combines three components - Performance, Risk, and Management - into a single composite score. Each component is individually weighted, and the results are summed to produce the final score.
| Category | Weight | Score | Weighted Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 40% | – | – |
| Risk | 30% | – | – |
| Management | 30% | – | – |
| Buckler Score | – |
The scoring model converts actual performance on a given metric into a standardized score between 0 and 100. This allows different metrics - each with their own units and targets - to be compared and combined fairly into a single overall result.
The score is based on where the actual metric (performance, MER, P/B, etc.) sits within a defined range. The range has a minimum (floor) and a maximum (ceiling). If the metric meets or exceeds the maximum, the score is 100. If the metric falls at or below the minimum, the score is 0. Anything in between is scored proportionally - the closer to the maximum, the higher the score.
It means every improvement between the minimum and maximum counts. For example, if the range is 0%-25% and actual performance is 10%, 40% of the range has been covered and will score 40 out of 100. The relationship is a straight line - consistent and predictable at every point.
No. Scores are capped at 100 and floored at 0. If performance exceeds the maximum threshold, it receives the full 100 points. Performance below the minimum scores 0 regardless of how far below it falls.
Each metric carries a weight that reflects its relative importance. Once the raw score (0-100) is calculated, it is multiplied by that weight to produce its weighted contribution to the total. For example, a raw score of 40 on a metric weighted at 50% contributes 20 points to the overall result.
The same scoring formula is applied consistently across all metrics. What differs between metrics are the specific minimum and maximum thresholds and the assigned weight.