Acutic vs Danelfin: a Danelfin alternative for investors who want a process

What each product actually is

Danelfin in one paragraph

Danelfin is a Barcelona-based equity research platform. It ingests roughly 10,000 features per stock per day — technical indicators, fundamental ratios, sentiment signals — and runs them through a machine-learning pipeline that emits a single AI Score from 1 to 10 for each instrument. Coverage spans US and EU stocks plus a growing ETF list. The AI Score is not a black box: the platform exposes which factor groups drove a given rating and lets you watch the score change as new data lands. Pricing is around $39 per month for the Premium tier with full alerts and reports. Danelfin's 10/10 list and score-change alerts are the centre of its product surface.

Acutic in one paragraph

Acutic is an AI investment research workflow. We run a screener, a multi-factor scoring model, and a panel of LLM agents that produce a structured research report on each candidate — a fundamentals analysis, a technical setup analysis, a quality view, a news-context view, and a risk view. The report renders the agents side by side. From there the user maintains a decision journal: each entry captures the thesis, the evidence cited, and the rules invoked. An evaluation module then grades how the journal entry has aged at multiple time windows. The tagline is research, not signals. Acutic does not produce personalised verdicts on specific instruments and never executes trades.

Feature comparison

The honest version. Where Danelfin has a clear edge, we say so.

Where Danelfin is the stronger choice today

We will not be cute about this. There are real reasons to use Danelfin in 2026, and a comparison article that pretends otherwise is not credible.

1. A published, multi-year backtest with explicit numbers

Danelfin has put a stake in the ground. Their public material describes a study in which stocks rated 10/10 by the AI Score exceeded the S&P 500 by roughly 21 percentage points over the measured short windows, and a 10/10-rated composite that rose around 376 percent against the index's ~166 percent over the 2017–2025 period. You can argue with the methodology — backtests rarely survive the leap to live trading without decay, and small-cap or low-liquidity inclusions distort headline results — but the discipline of publishing the numbers is genuine. Most retail-facing AI tools refuse to.

Acutic publishes a public performance page at acutic.io/performance with historical aggregate evidence organised by score bucket and evaluation window, including the periods where the model was wrong. Our data accumulates monthly — 1Y, 3Y, and 5Y windows become available as the score snapshot history matures.

2. A simpler product surface and a lower price point

Danelfin Premium at roughly $39 per month is an easy decision for an investor who already has a workflow they trust and just wants a numerical second opinion. Acutic is a heavier purchase. We assume our users want the multi-agent research, the journal, the evaluation history. If you do not, the price difference is real and Danelfin is the frugal answer.

3. Score transparency at the factor level

Danelfin shows which signal groups (technical, fundamental, sentiment) drove a given AI Score and how the score has moved over time. That is more transparency than most single-rating competitors offer. Acutic exposes its sub-scores too — but our value sits downstream of the scoring model, in the analyst layer and the journal. If your interest is purely in "why is this stock rated this way today," Danelfin's focused UI is faster to read.

Where Acutic does something Danelfin doesn't

1. Multi-agent research instead of a single number

A 1–10 score collapses many disagreements into one digit. That is useful when you want to skim a watchlist; it is less useful when you want to defend a decision to yourself three months from now. Acutic produces five distinct analyst views on each candidate — a Stock Quality Analyst, a Position Fundamentals view, a Position Technical setup, a news-context analyst, and a candidate risk view — each with structured outputs that you can read against each other. Sometimes the agents disagree. That is the point. The research surface preserves the disagreement instead of averaging it away.

2. A decision journal that lives next to the research

When you act on a research report in Acutic, the journal entry captures the thesis you wrote, the agents you cited, the rules you invoked, and the time you logged it. The journal is not a separate tool you have to remember to open — it is the place where the research turns into a decision record. Danelfin does not journal. Most of its peers don't either. That is the gap Acutic is built to fill.

3. Evaluation across multiple time windows

The evaluation module re-reads each journal entry at 7, 30, 90, 180, and 365 days. It asks two distinct questions: did the price move as the thesis predicted, and did the process produce a defensible decision regardless of price. The second question is the one almost nobody in retail equity research is set up to answer. A score-only product can't — there is no journal to score against. Acutic can, because the architecture was designed around that loop from day one.

4. Rule-violation notifications written as facts

Acutic does not nag you. When a portfolio rule that you have set is breached — single position weight above 5 percent, sector concentration above 30 percent, drawdown beyond your stated limit — the alert is factual: position 7.2% — exceeds your 5% rule. We do not soften it; we do not editorialise. The decision is yours. Danelfin's alerts are score-state alerts, not rule-state alerts. Different shape of notification, different shape of product.

Who should pick which

The two products are not actually replacements for each other. A serious investor could run them in parallel: Danelfin as a fast numerical filter on a watchlist, Acutic as the place where a candidate becomes a researched, journalled, evaluated decision. The comparison this article asks you to make is closer to which one defines my workflow, not which one wins.

Related reading

• Acutic vs Simply Wall St — visual fundamentals platform versus end-to-end workflow.
• The Acutic methodology — the seven sub-scores, the agent panel, and how we choose to disclose what we disclose.
• The full Acutic feature set — every part of the workflow, end to end.