Technical & Price Action
52-Week High but Still 30%+ Below All-Time High is a Technical & Price Action screen. It checks every NSE-listed stock against 3 conditions computed from nightly data, after excluding heavily pledged promoters and very small market caps. This page explains the rule, each figure and its source. It lists no stocks and is not advice.
A stock hitting a new 52-week high while remaining more than 30% below its all-time high is a stock in recovery mode — momentum is building again after a significant drawdown, but the return journey to the ATH still offers substantial upside if the fundamental case supports it. This screen occupies a different space from the all_time_high_breakout screen, which captures stocks breaking new ATH territory. Here, the investor premise is: the worst is likely over (evidenced by the 52-week high), but the recovery is not complete (30%+ gap to ATH remains), creating a window for investors who missed the ATH phase but want to capture the continuation. The 30% gap threshold is meaningful — it is large enough to represent genuine return potential rather than noise around the ATH, and requires that the stock has genuinely not recovered its peak valuation.
A stock must satisfy every condition below. Conditions are grouped under the pillar they test.
Recent Momentum
Recovery Room to ATH
Hard excludes
Ranked by (All-Time High − Close Price) ÷ All-Time High, highest first.
At 52-Week High (Boolean)
Binary indicator (1 or 0) set to 1 if the current closing price is within 1% of the 52-week rolling high closing price, computed from daily OHLCV data over the trailing 252 trading days.
High is better
% Below All-Time High
Percentage gap between the all-time high closing price and the current price, computed as (all_time_high_price - current_price) / all_time_high_price * 100. A positive value means the stock is below its ATH.
Low is better
Type hypothetical values to see which conditions they satisfy. These are not real stocks and nothing here is stored.
Enter values to begin
How many stocks pass if this threshold were set differently. Counts only; no stocks are named.
Loading the worked example…
Sign in with a completed risk profile to check any stock against this rule.
In the past data we checked, the stocks this screen picked did better than the ones it left out, and a cost-aware, out-of-sample portfolio built from them came close to our deflated-Sharpe bar without clearing it.
AI-generated plain-language explanation
The stocks this screen picked did better than the stocks it left out in the past data we checked, but a portfolio built from them did not clear our test after trading costs. Each month across the 64 months we have data for, we checked whether the stocks this screen picked did better over the following month (21 trading days) than the stocks it didn't pick. We score that from -1 (the picks always did worse) to +1 (always did better); 0 means no pattern. This screen scored 0.0142. As a measurement, the score is very small, but clearly above zero. If the screen had no real edge, a score at least this far from zero would show up about 6 in 1,000 by luck alone. We also tested a portfolio of the screen's picks over 64 months, using only what was known at the time and after estimated trading costs: it earned 1.08 for each unit of ups and downs, per year. Because this screen has been tested 2 times, we mark down results that could be flukes. After that, the chance that it truly beats simply holding the index is 0.940, about 94 in 100. A pattern can exist and still not be worth trading after costs. This is a record of the past, not a prediction. A screen is still a way to narrow a list by your own rules, whatever the measurement says.
This content has been generated with the assistance of artificial intelligence tools by FINOME TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD. It is for educational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice, a research report, or a recommendation under SEBI (Research Analysts) Regulations, 2014 or SEBI (Investment Advisers) Regulations, 2013. Not investment advice. Issued in compliance with SEBI circular SEBI/HO/MIRSD/MIRSD-SEC-5/P/CIR/2024/149.
In the past data we checked, the stocks this screen picked did better than the ones it left out, but a portfolio built from them did not clear our test after trading costs. Each month, across the whole period we have data for, we checked whether the stocks this screen picked did better, over the following month (21 trading days), than the stocks it didn't pick. We score that from -1 (the picks always did worse) to +1 (always did better); 0 means no pattern. This screen scored 0.0142. As a measurement, the score is very small, but clearly above zero. If the screen had no real edge, a score at least this far from zero would show up about 6 in 1,000 by luck alone.
We also tested a portfolio of the screen's picks over 64 months, using only what was known at the time and after estimated trading costs: it earned 1.08 for each unit of ups and downs, per year. Because this screen has been tested 2 times, we mark down results that could be flukes. After that, the chance that it truly beats simply holding the index is 0.940, about 94 in 100.
A pattern can exist and still not be worth trading after costs. This is a record of the past, not a prediction. A screen is still a way to narrow a list by your own rules, whatever the measurement says.
Not yet testable — 4 of 6 points needed to chart a rolling information coefficient.
This is a historical, statistical measurement produced by FINOME TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD's research harness on past data. It is not a prediction, and past results do not indicate future results. The universe is today's Nifty 500 constituents, so the sample is affected by survivorship bias. It describes how a screen's selections behaved in the past and does not constitute investment advice or a recommendation.
Rule version 1.0.0