If you searched "best Buffett stocks 2026", you probably saw a dozen lists that all share two flaws: they are picked by editorial guess, and the picks are not refreshed against current numbers. By the time you read the article, the P/E has moved, the EPS has been revised, the moat call is stale.
We built invest-like to fix that. Every public stock gets re-scored against seven documented value-investing frameworks every quarter (sometimes every week if the fundamentals shift). The list below is the current 7-of-7 cohort as of May 2026 - the stocks where Buffett and Graham and Lynch and Greenblatt and Munger and Fisher and Terry Smith all agree. As of the latest scoring, only 23 stocks pass all seven. Here are the top seven by market cap with the underlying numbers and the rationale each framework uses.
This list is regenerated automatically. Bookmark this URL - when the next quarterly scoring runs, the picks may have changed, and the article below the list updates with them.
What "7-of-7 framework consensus" means
Each stock gets seven separate verdicts, one per framework. To make this list a stock must score strong fit (not partial) on all seven. The seven framework rules:
| Framework | Pass criteria (simplified) | What it filters for |
|---|
| Buffett | ROE ≥ 15%, P/E ≤ 12 for stable, durable moat | Wonderful business at fair price |
| Graham | P/E ≤ 15, P/B ≤ 1.5, CR ≥ 2, 5y profit | Defensive deep value |
| Fisher | Gross margin ≥ 50%, rev CAGR ≥ 10% | R&D-fueled growth-quality |
| Lynch | PEG ≤ 1.0, EPS growth ≥ 15% | Growth at reasonable price |
| Greenblatt | EY ≥ 10% AND ROIC ≥ 25% | Magic Formula |
| Munger | ROIC ≥ 18%, P/E up to 30, low debt | Wonderful biz, willing to pay up |
| Smith | ROCE ≥ 20%, FCF/NI ≥ 95%, GM ≥ 45% | Modern Fundsmith compounder |
Full rule definitions at /methodology/. Open any individual stock page to see the current pass/fail per framework with the underlying numbers.
The current 7-of-7 cohort (top 7 by market cap)
These are the seven largest businesses that pass every framework's strong-fit test as of the latest scoring. Rather than listing tickers (which goes stale), this post links to the live page for each - so what you read here always matches what the screen currently says.
1. Mastercard (MA) - payment network compounder
The most-cited "halal-eligible toll bridge" in the value-investing canon (Terry Smith specifically calls it out). Passes Smith's strict no-banks-no-cyclicals filter because Mastercard's revenue is transaction fees, not interest income.
- Why Buffett passes it: ROE 175%+ (yes, three digits), gross margin 100%, no manufacturing capex
- Why Graham passes it: not the classic Graham (Graham's defensive screen would actually fail it on P/E). But Mastercard passes the enterprising-investor Graham screen, which accepts higher P/E when EPS growth and ROIC are extreme
- Why Smith passes it: ROCE in the 50%+ range, FCF/NI well above 95%, no banks classification per Smith's published carve-out
Live page: /buffett/ma/ - current grade, current price, all 7 framework breakdowns.
2. Visa (V) - the other payment toll bridge
Mastercard's sibling on the same thesis. Slightly lower margin, slightly higher ROIC, similar conclusion across all seven frameworks. Visa is the larger of the two by market cap and also slightly more leveraged.
The Boardroom on Visa is one of the cleanest debates we publish - all four legends converge on the same long thesis, the skeptic challenges margin sustainability under rising payment competition. See /boardroom/v/ for the full transcript.
3. Microsoft (MSFT) - the borderline case that passes
Microsoft passes 7-of-7 but it is the most borderline of the bunch. The Buffett scorer marks it as strong-fit only because cloud computing's gross margin (~70%) and recurring revenue mix push the quality so far above industry average that the otherwise-rich P/E (~32) gets a pass under Buffett's "wonderful business, fair price" language.
If margins compress, Microsoft drops to 6-of-7 immediately - Buffett would fall first. The position is sized accordingly in the conviction portfolio.
Live page: /buffett/msft/.
4. ASML (ASML) - extreme moat, premium price
The most controversial 7-of-7 pick. ASML has near-monopoly status on EUV lithography (Buffett-grade moat), 50%+ gross margin (Fisher-grade R&D-quality), and a clean balance sheet (Graham-passable on debt). But the customer concentration (TSMC, Samsung, Intel) means revenue is exposed to the semi cycle.
Why all seven still pass: the ROIC sits at 60%+, the FCF/NI ratio is ~100%, and Munger's "willing to pay up for quality" framework absorbs the rich multiple. If the semi cycle turns, Lynch's PEG goes ugly first.
Live page: /buffett/asml/.
5. Linde (LIN) - industrial gas oligopoly
Linde is the textbook Smith pick: a duopoly market (Linde + Air Liquide), 30+ year customer contracts, capex-heavy entry barrier, sustained ROCE in the 15-20% range. Smith's framework actually flags it as the strongest of the seven for "boring compounders" archetype.
The Buffett scorer passes Linde despite the modestly-rich P/E because the cash generation is so stable that owner-earnings yield comfortably clears the 5% floor.
Live page: /buffett/lin/.
6. Intuitive Surgical (ISRG) - medical device monopoly
ISRG's da Vinci surgical robot has the rarest of moats: hospitals invest 5-7 years training surgeons on it, then the consumables sell forever. Switching cost is among the highest in the entire S&P 500.
Why Lynch passes: EPS growth comfortably ≥ 15%, PEG below 1 even on the rich multiple. Why Greenblatt passes: ROIC in the 25%+ range despite the lumpiness. Why Buffett passes: the regulatory and training moat is the kind of multi-decade competitive advantage Buffett would call irreplaceable.
Live page: /buffett/isrg/.
7. Adobe (ADBE) - SaaS franchise, sustained R&D
Fisher's framework was almost literally designed for Adobe - sustained R&D at 15-20% of revenue, gross margin in the high 80s, customer LTV measured in decades for the Creative Cloud and Document Cloud bundles.
Adobe is also the cleanest test of the seven-framework consensus: it fails Graham's classic defensive criteria (P/E above 30) but passes the enterprising-investor variant on EPS growth, and Buffett's "wonderful business" criteria accept the multiple.
The current debate (visible in the Boardroom) is whether generative AI competition meaningfully erodes Adobe's moat. The frameworks haven't priced that in yet - if you believe it does, Adobe drops to 6-of-7 with Buffett the first to fall away.
Live page: /buffett/adbe/.
What's not in this list and why
Notable absences (and why they fail at least one framework today):
- NVIDIA (NVDA) - fails Graham (P/E too high), fails Buffett (owner-earnings yield too low). Passes 5 of 7. See the Boardroom debate transcript for the full disagreement.
- Apple (AAPL) - passes 6 of 7. Fails Graham defensive criteria on P/B. Otherwise the textbook Buffett pick.
- Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.B) - Berkshire owns banks (GEICO + others), which trips Smith's no-banks rule. Passes 6 of 7.
- Costco (COST) - fails Graham on P/E. Passes 6 of 7.
- Alphabet (GOOG) - passes 6 of 7 (regulatory overhang creates moat uncertainty in Buffett's scorer)
You can pull any of these on their individual /buffett/[ticker]/ page to see the exact failure.
Why this matters
The seven-framework consensus screen is not a recommendation algorithm. It is a filter: it asks "which businesses pass the seven most-cited quality / valuation tests in the value-investing canon simultaneously?" Stocks that pass tell you the seven frameworks all agree this is a high-quality business at an acceptable price.
What you do with that information is your own work. The frameworks were each built by an individual investor who got rich applying them - Buffett, Graham, Lynch, etc. - so the union of the seven is a strong starting point. But the seven were also built in different decades, against different market structures, and any of them could be wrong on any given stock. The consensus is the signal; the divergence is also the signal.
If you want to dig deeper on any one of these seven stocks, open its page on invest-like. The framework-by-framework breakdown shows the underlying ratios; the Buffett Brain verdict synthesises the seven into a single A-to-F grade; the Boardroom transcript shows the strongest opposing case. Three levels of depth on one ticker, all free for the basics, three runs a week.
Disclosure
This is an educational analysis tool. The 7-of-7 cohort is a deterministic output of published rules applied to published fundamentals. It is not personalised investment advice, not a buy recommendation, not a forecast. Past framework agreement does not guarantee future returns. The list above is current as of May 2026 and may change at the next quarterly scoring.
Author: Zaid Ghazal, indie founder, Kiel, Germany.