Fundamental analysis is a favorite of many investors. Many books and courses cover the topic. It tries to put a fair market value on stocks. That alone is a wide range because stocks are sometimes overvalued and sometimes undervalued. Fundamentals look at the past and attempt to forecast the future. The data uses accounting gimmicks to report the most favorable results.

Technicals say that price has support and resistance levels. They also claim to indicate future price moves based on patterns. On any time frame they are not much better than flipping a coin. Pick a timeframe and see what your accuracy is. Most of the time it will be 30-60%.

Many models are nothing more than a template that says for you these are the percentages you should use for each asset class. There are probably some great models out there but few are able to produce portfolio performance that outperforms the S&P. That has been the case for 70 years since the average investor underperforms the S&P by 5% per year.

Many financial experts voice recommendations but very few show the track record for all their recommendations. Studies show that forecasts for future performance are usually half the actual results. I doubt that recommendations are much better than investors which is about 30% accurate. Most recommendations are for stocks that have fallen in price which is why investors underperform the S&P.

Price knows everything about a stock and is always 100% accurate. Relative price movements are probably the best way to pick stocks. You want to own the stocks that are consistently up the most. Cap weighted ETFs automatically do this for you. Good ones own the best long term stocks all the time. Few investors can pick better stocks.