Ever wonder if those premium stock-picking newsletters are worth it? Someone just dropped $13,000 a year to find out, and the results are... let's just say enlightening.
A Reddit user posted a massively detailed analysis tracking 23 paid Substack newsletters over multiple time horizons, measuring not just returns but alpha—the actual skill-based outperformance versus sector benchmarks. This is Part 2 of their research, with improved methodology after feedback from the first post.
The Setup
This isn't some casual experiment. The researcher spent $13,400 annually across 32 newsletters (23 stock pickers, 9 macro commentators), tracked 3,101 high-conviction calls, and used AI to extract picks from every article. They measured returns at 1, 7, 15, 30, 60, 180, and 360 days, then calculated alpha by comparing each pick to its sector ETF.
Think of alpha as the "are you actually good at this?" metric. If a semiconductor stock goes up 10% but SOXX (the semiconductor ETF) goes up 8%, the alpha is only +2%. You didn't beat the market by much—you mostly rode the wave.
The Winners
At the 60-day mark, here are the top performers by median return:
1. Global Tech Research ($100/year): +20.4% return, +11.8% alpha 2. Citrini Research ($999/year): +14.9% return, +3.0% alpha 3. FundaAI ($1,000/year): +11.2% return, +2.6% alpha 4. SemiAnalysis ($500/year): +8.2% return, +0.0% alpha 5. BEP Research ($400/year): +8.0% return, -1.9% alpha
Notice the shuffle when you look at alpha instead of raw returns. BEP Research had solid returns but actually underperformed its sector benchmarks. Meanwhile, Global Tech Research—at just $100/year—crushed it with genuine skill-based outperformance.
