Finbox and invest-like both target serious retail value investors, but they take very different approaches to "how do I find stocks worth owning". Finbox is a quant screening factory: 100+ pre-built factors, classic systematic strategies (Magic Formula, Piotroski F-Score, Graham Number, etc.), and a custom factor builder that lets you combine anything with anything. invest-like takes the opposite approach: instead of giving you a thousand sliders to compose your own screen, it runs every stock against seven legendary investor frameworks and writes you the verdict in plain English with the underlying data attached.
Picking between them comes down to whether your bottleneck is screen composition (Finbox) or qualitative reasoning over the screen output (invest-like).
Disclosure up front: I built invest-like, so I have a structural conflict of interest. Finbox is genuinely better than invest-like on multiple important dimensions and I will say so explicitly. The goal of this post is to help you pick the right tool for your specific workflow.
Quick comparison table
| Feature | invest-like | Finbox |
|---|
| Starting price | Free tier + $13/month annual (12 EUR) | $30/month (Starter), $60/month (Pro) annual |
| Higher tier | $15/month or $299 lifetime | $60/month Pro tier |
| Coverage universe | ~12,500 tickers | 100,000+ global tickers |
| Screening depth | Pre-built framework filters (7 investors) | 100+ factors, fully composable custom screens |
| Built-in systematic strategies | 7 investor frameworks | Magic Formula, Piotroski F-Score, Graham Number, Acquirers Multiple, more |
| AI verdicts with reasoning | Yes (Buffett Brain, 5-pillar) | Limited (factor outputs, not narrative AI verdict) |
| Multi-investor framework consensus | Yes (7 frameworks: Buffett, Graham, Lynch, Greenblatt, Munger, Fisher, Smith) | No (factor-level, not investor-framework-level) |
| Multi-investor debate UI | Yes (Boardroom: 4 investor AIs + skeptic) | No |
| RAG over Berkshire shareholder letters | Yes (Ask Buffett, 1977-2025) | No |
| Custom factor builder | No (curated frameworks only) | Yes (signature feature) |
| Excel + CSV export | No | Yes (extensive) |
| Excel add-in | No | Yes |
| Published 5-year backtest | Yes (track-record page) | Backtest tools for user-built screens |
| Halal screening (AAOIFI Standard 21) | Yes | No |
| Multi-language UI | Yes (EN, DE, FR, ES, PT) | English-only |
| Free tier | Yes (3 AI verdicts/week + all rankings) | Limited free, mostly paid |
| Team age + size | Solo founder, 2026 launch | Larger team, founded 2014 |
The short read: Finbox wins on systematic quant screening, custom factor combinations, Excel integration, and global coverage depth. invest-like wins on AI verdicts written in plain English, multi-investor framework consensus, Berkshire-letter RAG, halal screening, and a more generous free tier. They are different shapes of "value-investing tool" and a serious analyst can credibly use both.
Where Finbox genuinely wins
Finbox has been around since 2014 and the team has built one of the deepest quant screening platforms in the retail category. A few places they are clearly ahead.
1. The custom factor builder
Finbox's signature feature is the screen composer. You can filter on any of 100+ factors (every margin, return-on-capital variant, balance-sheet ratio, growth rate, valuation multiple, ownership signal, etc.), combine them with AND/OR logic, save the screen, and re-run it weekly. If you want to build a custom Buffett-style screen with ROIC above 15 percent, free cash flow yield above 5 percent, debt-to-equity below 0.5, gross margin above 40 percent, and 5-year revenue growth above 7 percent, Finbox lets you compose exactly that screen.
invest-like leans on its pre-built framework filters (Buffett, Graham, Lynch, Greenblatt, Munger, Fisher, Smith). You get the framework verdicts and the consensus, but you do not build your own factor combinations. If your process is "I want to compose my own quant screen and iterate the parameters", Finbox is built for that and invest-like is not.
2. Classic systematic strategies built-in
Finbox ships well-known systematic strategies as one-click screens: Joel Greenblatt's Magic Formula, Joseph Piotroski's F-Score, Ben Graham's Net-Net and Graham Number screens, the Acquirer's Multiple, and others. Each one is implemented from the original source, you can adjust the parameters, and you can layer them with custom factors.
invest-like has Greenblatt's framework as one of the seven (with the published Magic Formula logic), but Finbox has a broader bench of these classic strategies with deeper customisation. If you want to run a pure Piotroski 9-point screen with your own market-cap and country filters, Finbox is the more direct tool.
3. Excel add-in and bulk data export
Finbox ships an Excel add-in that lets you pull any of their data into Excel directly. You can build your own models in Excel with Finbox data feeding the cells. They also export almost everything to CSV.
invest-like surfaces data inside its verdict and ranking pages but does not ship a bulk-export feature or an Excel add-in at comparable depth. If Excel modelling is core to your workflow, Finbox is the better fit.
4. Global coverage depth
Finbox covers 100,000+ tickers across global exchanges, including small-caps and many international markets. invest-like covers about 12,500 names, focused on the universe that actually passes a reasonable market-cap and instrument-type filter. If your strategy involves small or micro-cap stocks anywhere outside the major developed markets, Finbox has the wider universe.
5. Backtest tools for custom screens
Finbox lets you backtest your own custom screens against historical data. Build a Magic Formula variant, run it back 10 years, see how it would have performed. This is a real quant-style workflow at retail pricing.
invest-like publishes one specific methodology's backtest at /track-record/, but it is not a sandbox where you backtest your own screens. The user backtest at Finbox is a real feature invest-like does not match.
6. Longer team track record
Finbox has been live since 2014 with a team of multiple engineers and a real product surface. invest-like launched in 2026 with a solo founder. If you weight "this team has been around for 10+ years" heavily, Finbox has the obvious edge.
Where invest-like genuinely wins
invest-like is not trying to be a quant screening factory. It is trying to be the framework-aware verdict layer that tells you what to do with the data in plain English. Here is where that approach wins.
1. AI verdicts in plain English with per-pillar reasoning
invest-like's Buffett Brain produces a structured 5-pillar verdict for any stock: moat, durability of competitive advantage, management quality, financial strength, and valuation. Each pillar gets its own paragraph with the specific data point that triggered the scoring decision. You read it like a Buffett-style write-up, not like a screen output.
Finbox shows you the factor values and the scoring against the systematic strategy. It does not write you a Buffett-style verdict in plain English. If your bottleneck is "I have the numbers, I need someone to reason about them in narrative form", invest-like answers that and Finbox does not at the same depth.
2. Multi-investor framework consensus, not just factor combinations
There is a real difference between "I built a screen with ROIC, FCF yield, and debt-to-equity filters" (what Finbox does best) and "this stock passes the published rules of Buffett, Graham, Lynch, Greenblatt, Munger, Fisher, and Smith simultaneously" (what invest-like does).
Finbox's factors are mostly quantitative atoms. invest-like's frameworks are integrated qualitative + quantitative rule cascades from each named investor's actual published methodology. The 7-of-7 consensus tier (47 stocks as of May 2026) is not a screen output, it is an intersection of seven independent framework checks.
If you want "which stocks would Buffett, Graham, and Lynch all own", invest-like answers that directly. Finbox can approximate it with custom factor combinations, but it is not the native framing.
3. The Boardroom: multi-investor debate
invest-like's Boardroom simulates a live debate between four investor AIs (Buffett, Graham, Lynch, Greenblatt) plus a dedicated skeptic role, each arguing from their actual framework rules with citations. No competitor in the retail category ships this format. Definitely not Finbox.
4. Ask Buffett with Berkshire-letter RAG
invest-like indexes every Berkshire Hathaway shareholder letter from 1977 to 2025, plus Charlie Munger's commentary. Ask Buffett a question about any stock and the answer cites the specific letter year and section. Real quotes from the actual source text. Finbox has nothing comparable.
5. Published 5-year cohort backtest
invest-like publishes the open backtest at /track-record/. The 7-of-7 framework consensus cohort (47 stocks as of May 2026) returned a median +73.8 percentage points above the S&P 500 over a rolling 5-year window, with about 85 percent of the cohort beating the index. Server-locked entry timestamps, documented methodology.
This is structurally different from Finbox's user-backtest sandbox. Finbox lets you backtest anything you build (more flexible). invest-like publishes one specific methodology's backtest as an independently verifiable claim (more auditable as a single number).
6. Halal Mode (AAOIFI Standard 21)
invest-like applies the AAOIFI Standard 21 halal screen on every stock and layers it on top of the 7-framework consensus. Roughly 1,500 stocks pass the halal filter, and the subset that also passes the framework consensus is the high-conviction halal cohort. Finbox does not ship a halal filter.
7. Multi-language UI
invest-like ships in English, German, French, Spanish, and Portuguese. Finbox is English-only.
8. Pricing and free tier
invest-like is 12 EUR per month annual (~$13/month) and has a generous free tier (3 AI verdicts per week, all rankings, the published backtest, the consensus screen). Finbox starts at $30/month and goes up to $60/month at the Pro tier, with a more limited free tier. If pricing matters, invest-like is roughly 2.5x to 5x cheaper at the entry tier.
Who should pick Finbox
You will probably get more out of Finbox if:
- You compose your own custom quant screens with specific factor combinations
- You want classic systematic strategies (Magic Formula, Piotroski, Graham Number, Acquirer's Multiple) built in with editable parameters
- You backtest your own screens and want a sandbox to iterate
- You use Excel heavily and want a data add-in to feed your own models
- You need global coverage including small-caps and frontier-market tickers
- You weight team longevity (live since 2014) heavily
- You are comfortable spending $30-60 per month for a deeper quant tool
Who should pick invest-like
You will probably get more out of invest-like if:
- You want a structured Buffett-style verdict in plain English with reasoning per pillar
- You want seven different value-investing frameworks scored separately on the same stock with a consensus tier
- You want the multi-investor Boardroom debate
- You want Berkshire-letter citations via Ask Buffett
- You care about a methodology-level published backtest
- You need a halal-investing filter
- You read research in German, French, Spanish, or Portuguese
- You want a generous free tier
- You want to pay $13/month rather than $30-60/month
The honest case for using both
For a serious analyst who does both quant screening and qualitative valuation, the combined stack works:
- Use Finbox for: composing custom factor screens, running Piotroski/Magic Formula/Graham Number with adjusted parameters, exporting screen results to Excel, backtesting your own screen ideas, the global coverage breadth
- Use invest-like for: the AI verdict in plain English on each candidate Finbox surfaces, the multi-investor framework consensus check, the Boardroom debate, the Berkshire-letter context, the halal filter
Total cost: roughly $43-73 per month combined depending on Finbox tier. The two tools genuinely complement each other. Finbox surfaces candidates from a custom quant screen, invest-like wraps the verdict and the multi-investor framework agreement around them.
How to verify this comparison yourself
The honest test: open the same name on both tools and see which framing actually helps you decide.
- On Finbox: run the Magic Formula screen, look at the top 30 names, then compose a custom variant with your own factor filters (ROIC, FCF yield, debt-to-equity, market cap floor). Export to Excel.
- On invest-like at /buffett/aapl/ (or any ticker that came out of your Finbox screen): read the Buffett Brain 5-pillar verdict, look at the per-framework consensus chips (Buffett, Graham, Lynch, Greenblatt, Munger, Fisher, Smith), run the Boardroom (free up to 3x per week), ask Buffett a question about the stock.
If Finbox's quant-screen-and-export framing is more useful than invest-like's verdict-and-debate framing for your actual workflow, that is a legitimate preference. The argument I am making is "they are doing different jobs and a serious user often benefits from both".
Common questions
Is Finbox worth $30-60 per month? If your workflow involves composing custom quant screens, using Excel models with live data, or running classic systematic strategies (Magic Formula, Piotroski, etc.) with editable parameters, yes. If you mostly want a verdict in plain English on the stocks you are considering, the value is less obvious because Finbox will not write you that verdict.
Is invest-like worth $13 per month? If you want a structured Buffett-style verdict on individual stocks with multi-investor framework consensus, yes. The free tier gives you three AI verdicts per week and all the ranking pages, so you can evaluate the methodology before paying anything.
Can Finbox produce AI verdicts? Finbox has added some AI-assisted features over time but the core of the product is the factor library, the screen composer, and the data layer. The structured Buffett-style verdict with per-pillar reasoning is not Finbox's primary output.
Can invest-like build a custom quant screen? Not at Finbox's depth. invest-like leans on the seven pre-built framework filters and the consensus tier. If you want to combine 12 custom factors with your own logic, Finbox is the right tool.
Which one has better backtest tooling? Finbox lets you backtest your own custom screens, which is more flexible. invest-like publishes one specific methodology's 5-year backtest, which is more auditable as a single claim. Different shapes of backtest, both honest.
Does Finbox cover international markets? Yes, broadly. 100,000+ global tickers including small-caps and many international exchanges. invest-like covers about 12,500 quality-screened names.
Can I export data from invest-like? No bulk export at the depth Finbox offers. invest-like is web-first and the data surfaces inside its verdict and ranking pages. We do not ship an Excel add-in.
Can I trust either of these tools? Both publish methodology at meaningful depth. Trust the methodology, not the verdict or screen output in isolation. Past framework verdicts and past screen results do not guarantee future stock returns. Do your own research.
Disclosure
This is an opinionated comparison written by the founder of invest-like. Finbox is genuinely a strong product in the quant-screening category and I have tried to be specific about where they win. If you think I have mischaracterised Finbox anywhere, please email me at zaid@invest-like.com and I will update the post.
Finbox is a product of Finbox Inc., not affiliated with invest-like. Both are educational tools, not investment advisers. Past framework verdicts and past screen results do not guarantee future stock returns. Do your own research.
Author: Zaid Ghazal, founder of invest-like, indie SaaS, Kiel, Germany.