Newer Analysts Hit Their Price Targets Twice as Fast as Veterans
Line up the price target records of Wall Street’s newer analysts against the veterans and one gap jumps out right away: speed. The newer names, the ones with under four years of coverage, reach their price targets in roughly half the time the long-tenured veterans take. The veterans hit a higher share of their targets in the end. But when a call pays off, the newer analyst usually gets there first.
That’s the finding from a first cut of AnaChart’s records, and it’s the kind of thing a hit-rate number alone would hide. So we pulled the numbers and looked.
A sample of 44 analysts who cover Nasdaq-100 names, split into two groups: 22 “newer” analysts with under four years of coverage and 22 “veterans” with twelve years or more, each with at least 15 documented price targets. Tenure is counted from an analyst’s first Nasdaq-100 price target in our records. For each one we read their AnaChart met ratio (the share of price targets the stock has reached) and their average days to hit a target, pulled live this week. Full method and limits are at the bottom. This is the opening cut of a series we can run on any sector, any stock, any brokerage.
Newer analysts get there about twice as fast
The median newer analyst reaches a target in about 130 days. For the veterans, it’s 258. Look at how many of their met targets land inside six months and the split gets wider: 77% of the newer group’s met targets arrive within 180 days, against 9% for the veterans.
Flip to accuracy and the veterans take it back. Their median met ratio is 78%, against 65% for the newer group. More years, more targets, a higher share reached. Slower, but surer.
Why newer analysts hit sooner
So why would a three-year analyst beat a twenty-year one on speed? Two things are probably at work, and neither is about talent.
The first is horizon. A price target is a bet with a clock on it, and newer analysts tend to set nearer-term ones, a number the stock can plausibly reach in the next quarter or two. Veterans, with longer books and more names to defend, more often plant a flag further out. A target 40% above today’s price will, on average, take longer to touch than one 15% above it, whoever wrote it.
The second is how the clock gets counted. Days to hit is measured only on the targets that were reached, so it describes the calls that paid off, not the ones still pending. Veterans reach a higher share in the end, their 78% median met ratio says so, but a good chunk of that share arrives late. Patience shows up as a higher hit rate and a longer wait at the same time.
Put the two together and you get the split in the data. Newer analysts resolve faster. Veterans resolve more often. Same job, two different clocks.
The most-covered names in each group
Here are the five most prolific analysts on each side, by Nasdaq-100 target count, with their AnaChart accuracy record. It isn’t perfectly clean, one newer analyst, Brian Chin, runs slow at 593 days, and that’s the point of showing real names instead of only an average. The medians carry the finding, not any single row.
| Newer analyst (<4y) | Met ratio | Avg days to hit |
|---|---|---|
| Ken Gawrelski | 63.5% | 79 |
| Angelo Zino | 88.6% | 133 |
| Brian Chin | 93.1% | 593 |
| Shrenik Kothari | 66.3% | 110 |
| Eric Heath | 76.7% | 142 |
| Veteran analyst (≥12y) | Met ratio | Avg days to hit |
|---|---|---|
| Vijay Rakesh | 86.8% | 249 |
| Joseph Moore | 80.0% | 225 |
| Timothy Arcuri | 90.0% | 299 |
| Daniel Ives | 61.3% | 258 |
| Brent Thill | 70.4% | 249 |
The two ends of the spectrum
The medians understate how far apart the extremes sit. Here are five of the quickest newcomers against five of the most patient veterans, all from the same sample. Read the days column top to bottom and the gap is hard to miss.
| Fast newcomers (<4y) | Met ratio | Avg days to hit |
|---|---|---|
| Joseph Civello | 61.8% | 61 |
| Ken Gawrelski | 63.5% | 79 |
| Andrew Sherman | 61.3% | 89 |
| Alex Straton | 81.0% | 96 |
| Arun Sundaram | 73.4% | 108 |
| Patient veterans (≥12y) | Met ratio | Avg days to hit |
|---|---|---|
| John Vinh | 84.2% | 456 |
| Laura Martin | 61.1% | 373 |
| Amit Daryanani | 90.2% | 367 |
| Mitch Steves | 99.5% | 332 |
| Keith Bachman | 74.5% | 324 |
Joseph Civello reaches a target in about two months. John Vinh, with a strong 84% hit rate, averages more than fifteen. Both are doing real work. They’re just working on different timelines, and a hit rate on its own would never tell you which is which.
Why speed changes the ranking
A hit rate on its own treats a target reached in three months the same as one that takes three years. Money doesn’t work that way, and neither does AnaChart’s performance score. The score rewards a target that’s met by a wide margin and met fast, so a newer analyst who reaches a fair target in four months can outrank a veteran with a higher career hit rate but a two-year horizon.
You can see it on a single stock. On Tesla, Itay Michaeli has reached about 65% of his price targets, below a peer at 72%, yet he sits higher on the board because his targets land in roughly 86 days against the peer’s 265. Speed and recency, not just the raw share reached.
A concrete case: same accuracy, half the wait
Take two analysts who both reach most of their price targets. Alex Straton, under four years covering these names, gets there in about 96 days. Amit Daryanani, a veteran of more than a decade, averages about 367. Two strong records. One arrives in a quarter, the other takes the better part of a year.
What this means if you follow analysts
None of this says newer is better or that veterans are past it. It says a single number, a hit rate, hides two different things: how often an analyst’s targets are met, and how long you wait for them. If you’re acting on a target this quarter, speed matters as much as the share. If you’re holding for years, a patient veteran’s higher hit rate may be exactly what you want.
That’s the whole reason AnaChart scores both. The performance score folds in how often a target is met, by how wide a margin, and how fast, so you’re not judging an analyst on one axis and getting surprised by another. Pull up any analyst and the met ratio and the average days sit side by side, not a single star rating standing in for both.
How we measured this
A few notes on the method, because a study is only as good as the way it was built.
The sample is 44 analysts who cover Nasdaq-100 stocks: the 22 newest and the 22 most-tenured, each with at least 15 documented price targets. We set the 15-target floor so one lucky call can’t swing an analyst’s record. Tenure is counted from an analyst’s first Nasdaq-100 price target in AnaChart’s data, which is a proxy, an analyst who covered other sectors first will look newer here than they really are. Met ratio and average days to hit are each analyst’s full AnaChart record across every stock they cover, not just their Nasdaq names, read live the week this published.
Two limits worth stating plainly. Days to hit only counts targets that were reached, so it’s the speed of the calls that worked, not the ones still open. And 44 analysts is a sample, not the whole book, AnaChart tracks more than 7,000. We ran this as the first cut of a repeatable series. The same method reruns cleanly by sector, by a single stock, or by brokerage, and those are next.
Check any analyst yourself. AnaChart keeps the largest set of analyst price targets and ratings available anywhere, 661,383 price targets and 759,654 ratings across more than 7,000 analysts, each call kept with its original source. Six stocks are free with no signup.
Look up your stock. Enterprise teams can license the full dataset on Snowflake and BigQuery through the analyst price target dataset.
Frequently asked questions
Do newer analysts really hit price targets faster than veterans?
In this sample, yes. The median newer analyst reached a target in about 130 days, against 258 for veterans. Two who both hit most of their calls make it concrete: Alex Straton (under four years) gets there in about 96 days, while veteran Amit Daryanani averages about 367. Across the group, 77% of the newer analysts’ met targets landed within 180 days, against 9% for the veterans.
Are newer analysts more accurate than veterans?
No. Veterans reached a higher share of their targets: a median met ratio of 78%, against 65% for the newer group. Some veterans post very high hit rates, like Mitch Steves at 99.5% and Ross Seymore at 90.3%, but they take longer to get there. Newer analysts trade a little hit rate for speed.
Why do newer analysts reach their targets faster?
Two reasons, and neither is about talent. Newer analysts tend to set nearer-term targets a stock can reach sooner, while veterans more often plant a target further out. And days to hit only counts targets that were reached, so a veteran’s patience shows up as both a higher hit rate and a longer wait. Joseph Civello, for instance, reaches his in about 61 days; veteran John Vinh averages 456.
Should I follow newer analysts instead of veterans?
Not as a rule. A hit rate hides two things: how often a target is met and how long it takes. Newer analysts here resolved faster (about 130 days median) while veterans reached a higher share (78% versus 65%). AnaChart’s performance score blends both plus the margin, which is why an analyst like Itay Michaeli can top a stock’s board at a 65% hit rate. This is not investment advice.
How does AnaChart define a veteran versus a newer analyst?
Tenure is counted from an analyst’s first Nasdaq-100 price target in our records. Vijay Rakesh, with about 15 years of coverage, is a veteran; someone like Joseph Civello, under three years in, is newer. Newer means under four years, veteran means twelve or more, and every analyst in the sample has at least 15 documented targets.
What is a met ratio?
The share of an analyst’s price targets that the stock has reached at least once. Angelo Zino, for example, has reached 88.6% of his. It’s paired with average days to hit, so you can see how often a target is met and how long it took.
Sample of 44 Nasdaq-100 analysts, figures read from AnaChart analyst records in July 2026. This is the first cut of a running series. Not investment advice.