Piotroski F-Score in Practice: How I Use It to Confirm a Value Pick

I want to be upfront about something: I do not use the Piotroski F-Score as a primary stock screen most of the time.

That might surprise you, given how much ink gets spilled on Piotroski scores in value investing circles. But my process is different: I use it as a confirmation tool, not a discovery tool. Most of the cases, by the time I’m running a stock through the Piotroski framework, I’ve already decided the stock looks cheap enough to deserve deeper attention. What I want the score to tell me is whether the business behind that cheap price is healthy, improving, or quietly deteriorating.

That distinction matters enormously. And I learned it the hard way.

Key Takeaways

• The Piotroski F-Score is a 9-point financial health scoring system.
• I apply it after a stock passes my initial valuation filter, not before using it to confirm quality, not screen for cheapness. If you use it as a first screen, please make sure you use additional filters to screen for value.
• The 9 signals are organized across three dimensions: profitability, leverage/liquidity, and operating efficiency.
• A score of 7–9 is a green light to continue research; a score below 4 is a hard caution even when valuation looks compelling.
• I’ve avoided at least two value traps by paying attention to deteriorating Piotroski scores.

What the Piotroski F-Score Actually Measures

Joseph Piotroski published his original paper in 2000. He was trying to solve a specific problem: value stocks (as measured by low price-to-book) are cheap on average, but a significant portion of them are cheap because the underlying business is getting worse, not because the market is being irrational. His score was designed to separate the financially strengthening stocks from the ones heading toward deeper trouble.

Each of the nine criteria is binary – a company either earns the point or it doesn’t. The maximum score is 9 (strongest financial health) and the minimum is 0 (weakest). In practice:

• Score 7–9: Strong financial position, improving fundamentals
• Score 4–6: Mixed signals, require more scrutiny
• Score 0–3: Financially distressed or deteriorating — extreme caution warranted

The nine criteria break into three groups of three. Let me walk you through each one and explain what I’m actually looking for when I run through them.

Group 1: Profitability Signals

These three criteria assess whether the business is generating real economic returns.

1. Return on Assets (ROA): Positive This Year?

What it tests: Is the company profitable on an asset base? (Net income / total assets > 0)

What I think about it: This is the most basic filter. A positive ROA tells me the business isn’t actively destroying capital. But I never stop here. A company can post a barely-positive ROA while its trend is in freefall. I want to see the year-over-year direction as much as the current number.

2. Operating Cash Flow: Positive?

What it tests: Is the company generating positive operating cash flow?

What I think about it: This one is more important to me than ROA. Earnings can be manipulated through accounting choices; cash flow is harder to fake. If a company shows positive net income but negative operating cash flow, that’s a yellow flag regardless of what else the score shows. I discuss this dynamic in more detail when I look at earnings vs. free cash flow – the gap between the two is often where value traps hide.

3. Change in ROA: Improving Year-over-Year?

What it tests: Is return on assets higher this year than last year?

What I think about it: This is the trend test. A company can score a point on criterion 1 (positive ROA) while still losing this point (ROA declining). I pay close attention to this one in cyclical industries where a one-year snapshot can be misleading. A company with declining ROA in a benign environment is telling me something important about competitive pressure or operational drift.

Group 2: Leverage, Liquidity, and Capital Sources

These three criteria assess whether the balance sheet is getting stronger or more fragile.

4. Change in Leverage: Long-Term Debt Ratio Decreasing?

What it tests: Is the ratio of long-term debt to average total assets lower this year than last year?

What I think about it: I love seeing this point earned. Debt reduction in a value stock is a signal that management is either generating enough cash to deleverage or actively prioritizing balance sheet health over growth bets. The opposite (a value stock with rising leverage) forces me to ask why. Is it funding a turnaround? Covering operating losses? In my experience, cheap stocks that are also taking on debt are among the most dangerous situations in investing. The debt ratios and value traps piece I wrote covers exactly this pattern.

5. Change in Current Ratio: Improving Liquidity?

What it tests: Is the current ratio (current assets / current liabilities) higher this year than last?

What I think about it: This one is about short-term survivability. A declining current ratio in a small-cap value stock can mean the company is burning through working capital faster than it’s generating it. During my time running Value Stock Guide, I came across several micro-caps that looked statistically cheap but were quietly running out of runway on their working capital. This criterion would have flagged them.

6. Change in Shares Outstanding: No Dilution?

What it tests: Did the company avoid issuing new shares?

What I think about it: This is a simple but elegant management quality signal. A company that earns this point has not diluted shareholders over the measurement period. Conversely, a company that loses this point is either funding operations through equity issuance (often a sign of weak cash generation) or making acquisitions that may or may not create value. Either way, it prompts a follow-up question. For small-cap value stocks especially, I’m alert to the dilution risk. It’s a chronic destroyer of per-share value in the micro-cap universe.

Group 3: Operating Efficiency

These three criteria test whether the business is becoming more or less efficient at converting assets and revenues into profit.

7. Change in Gross Margin: Improving?

What it tests: Is gross margin higher this year than last year?

What I think about it: Gross margin improvement tells me one of two things: pricing power is holding or improving, or the company is becoming more efficient in its cost of goods sold. Either is encouraging. Gross margin compression, on the other hand, is a classic early warning sign of competitive pressure – competitors undercut on price, or input costs rise faster than revenue. In a business where I’m already concerned about the competitive moat, a failing score on this criterion is a serious caution.

8. Change in Asset Turnover: More Revenue Per Dollar of Assets?

What it tests: Is the company generating more revenue per dollar of assets this year versus last year?

What I think about it: Asset turnover captures operational efficiency. A rising asset turnover ratio in a capital-intensive business tells me the company is sweating its assets harder: that’s generally good. A declining asset turnover in a non-capital-intensive business (like software or services) deserves extra scrutiny, because it may signal that revenue growth is slowing while the asset base expands.

9. Accruals: Is Cash Flow Quality High?

What it tests: Is operating cash flow greater than net income (as a ratio to assets)? In other words, is earnings quality high rather than accrual-dependent?

What I think about it: This is my favorite criterion in the entire score because it catches what I think of as “paper profits.” When a company’s net income significantly exceeds its operating cash flow, it means a large portion of reported profit exists only on the accrual basis – recognized but not yet collected or realized in cash. Sustained high accruals are one of the most reliable leading indicators of future earnings disappointment I’ve encountered. A company that fails this criterion alongside a compelling valuation deserves extreme caution before I proceed.

How I Actually Apply It: A Real Example

Let me describe a situation without naming the company. A few years ago I came across a small industrials manufacturer trading at roughly 6x earnings and below book value. On every surface metric, it looked like a classic deep value candidate.

Then I ran the Piotroski score. It came back at 3.

Profitability signals: It earned the positive ROA point, but ROA was declining year-over-year and operating cash flow had turned negative so it scored only 1 of 3 on profitability.

Leverage signals: Long-term debt had increased, the current ratio had deteriorated, and it had issued new shares to fund a small acquisition. Zero points out of 3.

Efficiency signals: Gross margin was falling, asset turnover was declining (consistent with a business losing competitive ground), but it did pass the accruals test. One out of 3.

Total: 3 out of 9.

A score of 3 on a stock that looked cheap on earnings and book value told me I was looking at a potential value trap; a stock that appears statistically cheap but where the underlying business is genuinely deteriorating. I passed. Over the next 18 months, the stock fell another 40% as the market caught up to what the Piotroski score was already telling me.

That experience crystallized my approach: valuation is necessary but not sufficient. The Piotroski score is my quality gatekeeper.

Using the Score Alongside My Existing Stock Lists

One of the most efficient ways to incorporate Piotroski scoring into your process is to use pre-built stock screens that already filter for high scores. I publish these monthly on this site: you can see the 9 small-cap stocks with Piotroski F-Score of 9 from June 2025 and the 20 large-cap stocks with Piotroski F-Score of 9 from March 2025 for examples.

But I want to be clear about how I use those lists: they’re a starting point for deeper research, not a ready-made buy list. A score of 9 tells me the financial health signals are uniformly positive – it doesn’t tell me the stock is cheap. That’s why the Piotroski score works best when used in conjunction with valuation filters, not in place of them.

If you want to build out a more systematic process around these signals, my upcoming articles on building a financial ratios stock checklist and deep value stock screening process will walk through exactly how to integrate Piotroski scoring into a broader analytical framework.

Common Mistakes Investors Make With Piotroski Scores

Mistake 1: Treating a high Piotroski score as a buy signal. A score of 9 in an overvalued stock is just a high-quality expensive stock. Quality and valuation are separate questions.

Mistake 2: Ignoring the score on stocks they already like. Confirmation bias is real. When I’m excited about a stock’s valuation, I have to force myself to run the Piotroski criteria dispassionately. The point is precisely to challenge my pre-existing enthusiasm.

Mistake 3: Applying it without understanding cyclicality. For highly cyclical businesses, a single-year snapshot of ROA or gross margin can be misleading. A steel company at the trough of the cycle will fail multiple profitability criteria not because the business is deteriorating but because it’s cyclically depressed. In those situations I look at Piotroski scores over multiple years and adjust my interpretation accordingly.

Mistake 4: Not combining it with other financial ratios. The Piotroski score is one of many tools. Pair it with debt coverage ratios, return on invested capital trends, and free cash flow analysis for a complete picture.

My Bottom Line on Piotroski

The F-Score doesn’t tell you what to buy. It tells you whether a company you already find interesting on valuation grounds has the financial health to support that interest or whether you’re about to walk into a value trap.

A score of 7 or higher gives me confidence to proceed to deeper research. A score of 5–6 prompts me to identify specifically which criteria the company is failing and understand why. A score below 4 stops me cold unless there’s a truly exceptional situation with a clear, near-term catalyst for improvement.

It takes about 15–20 minutes to work through all nine criteria manually once you have the financial statements in front of you. That’s 15 minutes that has saved me from several expensive mistakes. In investing, the best risk management tools are usually the simplest ones and the Piotroski F-Score is near the top of that list.

---

Subscribe to My Free Newsletter

Subscribe to my free newsletter. I send weekly stock screens and value investing ideas directly to your inbox. Each week I share what I’m screening for, what the numbers are telling me about the market, and occasionally, a closer look at a stock that passed my Piotroski and valuation filters.

If you want to see the full Inner Circle portfolio, including Kelly Criterion-based position sizes and the complete research reports behind each holding, that’s available through the Inner Circle membership. The Piotroski score is just one input in that process, but it’s one I rely on consistently.

---

Disclosure: Nothing in this article constitutes investment advice or a recommendation to buy or sell any security. The example described is illustrative and based on past analysis. Do your own due diligence before making any investment decisions.