Pure Benchmarks · Head to head

Sharesight vs Stock Rover

Short answer

Sharesight has no capability here that Stock Rover lacks. Stock Rover has no capability here that Sharesight lacks. They overlap on 3 of the 9 capabilities scored here. Neither one covers decision attribution, which is the gap our own product, Pure Benchmarks, is built around.

Sharesight and Stock Rover get compared constantly because both sit in the performance attribution category and both start from your real holdings. They are not the same product. Sharesight is the strongest record of what happened, which is the input attribution needs, rather than attribution itself (Free plan up to 10 holdings, paid plans above that). Stock Rover is a research and screening platform whose Trade Evaluator scores individual trades against an index rather than against the portfolio you gave up (Premium at $17.99 per month). This page scores both on the same capability list, shows the 0 places they actually diverge, and names what neither of them does. Pure Benchmarks is our own product and appears in the table with its own gaps marked.

What Sharesight does that Stock Rover does not

Nothing, on the capabilities scored here. Every box Sharesight ticks, Stock Rover ticks too. The difference between them on this page is price and fit rather than capability. A free plan tracks up to 10 holdings with no credit card. Benchmarking is listed on the Starter plan and above.

What Stock Rover does that Sharesight does not

Nothing, on the capabilities scored here. Every box Stock Rover ticks, Sharesight ticks too. The difference between them on this page is price and fit rather than capability. Essentials is $7.99 per month, Premium $17.99 and Premium Plus $27.99, with annual and two-year billing reducing the rate. The Trade Evaluator specifically requires Premium or above.

Where Sharesight and Stock Rover are the same

Both cover Your real portfolio; Self-serve retail; Any broker. On these, the choice comes down to price and interface rather than capability. Price: Sharesight — free plan up to 10 holdings, paid plans above that; Stock Rover — premium at $17.99 per month.

What neither Sharesight nor Stock Rover does

6 capabilities are missing from both: Decision attribution; Allocation vs selection; Peer baseline; Advisor review; Decision journal; Free real output. Pure Benchmarks, our own product, covers 4 of them: Decision attribution; Peer baseline; Advisor review; Free real output. It does not cover Allocation vs selection; Decision journal.

Which one to choose

Sharesight is built for investors who want accurate multi-broker performance, dividend and tax records with a benchmark attached. Stock Rover is built for research-led investors who want deep screening and are content measuring trades against a chosen benchmark. Because they score identically on capability here, the deciding factor is price and how each one fits the way you already work. Main limitation of Sharesight: contribution and benchmark comparison rather than attribution to decisions. Main limitation of Stock Rover: the baseline is an index or fund you nominate, not the portfolio you would still hold had you not traded, so it answers a benchmark question rather than a counterfactual one.

How this comparison works

Which matters more to you: what Sharesight does, or what Stock Rover does?

Decision journals and attribution tools are both marketed as decision tracking and they are not the same thing. A journal records your reasoning before the trade. Attribution measures the outcome afterwards. This page compares attribution tools and marks the journal capability as its own row.
The second question is who is allowed to buy it. Several of the strongest attribution engines in this category are sold to advisors or to institutions, and the attribution module specifically sits above a retail price point.
The third question is what the result is measured against. Every tool here can measure against an index. Only one measures against other real portfolios as well.
Capabilities and prices were read from each vendor's own published pages on the date shown. Vendors change both.
Pure Benchmarks is our own product. It does not produce a Brinson decomposition and it has no journal, and both gaps are marked in the table rather than described around.
FactSet, Bloomberg PORT, Confluence StatPro and Zephyr also serve this category and are institutional products sold through direct sales; they are outside the scope of a page about tools an individual can actually buy.

The comparison

Capabilities verified against each vendor's published pages on September 17, 2026.

Capability	Sharesight	Stock Rover	Pure Benchmarks
Decision attribution	No	Partly	Yes
Allocation vs selection	Partly	No	No
Your real portfolio	Yes	Yes	Yes
Self-serve retail	Yes	Yes	Yes
Any broker	Yes	Yes	Yes
Peer baseline	No	No	Yes
Advisor review	No	No	Yes
Decision journal	No	No	No
Free real output	Partly	No	Yes
Price	Free plan up to 10 holdings, paid plans above that	Premium at $17.99 per month	Free account

✓ yes · ~ partly · ✗ no

What each capability means

Attributes results to the individual changes you made, not only to holdings or sectors

Classic attribution answers which holding or sector drove the return. Decision attribution answers a narrower and more uncomfortable question: did your trading decisions beat doing nothing? It is a buy-and-hold counterfactual — the tool freezes the portfolio as it stood before the change, runs that do-nothing portfolio forward alongside the real one, and reports the dollar difference. Those are different calculations and most tools only do the first.

Produces the classic allocation, selection and interaction decomposition

The institutional standard, usually called Brinson attribution. It separates the return you earned by weighting a group differently from the benchmark from the return you earned by picking better holdings inside that group.

Runs on your own linked accounts rather than a model or a manually built portfolio

Attribution on a hypothetical portfolio is an exercise. Attribution on the account you actually own, with the trades you actually placed, is a review.

An individual can sign up and use it without an advisor licence or an institutional contract

Much of this category is sold to advisors and asset managers. If attribution sits behind an advisor tier or a sales call, it is not available to the person whose money it is.

Works across brokerages instead of being tied to one

A tool locked to a single broker can only attribute the part of your money that sits there, which for most people is not the whole picture.

Compares the outcome against other real investors, not only against an index

An index is one baseline. What comparable investors did with the same market over the same days is a second one, and it is the one that tells you whether the decision was unusual or ordinary.

Can be used to review decisions somebody else made on your behalf

If an advisor or a managed account is making the changes, attribution is the only way to see whether those changes earned their fee.

Records your reasoning before the decision, as a journal

Journalling captures intent in advance; attribution measures outcome afterwards. They are routinely confused because both are called decision tracking, and almost no tool does both well.

Free tier produces real attribution output rather than a trial countdown

Several tools here have a free plan where attribution specifically is the thing the free plan does not include.

Every tool in detail

Sharesight

The strongest record of what happened, which is the input attribution needs, rather than attribution itself.

Best for: Investors who want accurate multi-broker performance, dividend and tax records with a benchmark attached.

Pricing: A free plan tracks up to 10 holdings with no credit card. Benchmarking is listed on the Starter plan and above.

Strengths

Separates capital gains, dividends and currency movement, which is the decomposition most retail tools skip
Benchmarks against any of more than 750,000 supported stocks, ETFs and funds
Excellent multi-broker and multi-currency record keeping

Limitations

Contribution and benchmark comparison rather than attribution to decisions
Benchmarking sits on the paid plans
No comparison against other investors

Stock Rover

A research and screening platform whose Trade Evaluator scores individual trades against an index rather than against the portfolio you gave up.

Best for: Research-led investors who want deep screening and are content measuring trades against a chosen benchmark.

Pricing: Essentials is $7.99 per month, Premium $17.99 and Premium Plus $27.99, with annual and two-year billing reducing the rate. The Trade Evaluator specifically requires Premium or above.

Strengths

The Trade Evaluator reports whether each trade added to or subtracted from performance, counting dividends gained or lost along the way
Scores at both the position level and the individual trade level rather than only the whole portfolio
Trades can be measured on an absolute basis or against an index, ETF or fund you choose
Sits inside a research platform with several hundred metrics and ranked screening

Limitations

The baseline is an index or fund you nominate, not the portfolio you would still hold had you not traded, so it answers a benchmark question rather than a counterfactual one
The Trade Evaluator is gated behind Premium at $17.99 per month; the free tier does not include it
No comparison against other real investors
No allocation and selection decomposition

Pure Benchmarks

A buy-and-hold counterfactual for every change you made: each decision is scored against the do-nothing portfolio you would still hold if you had left it alone.

Best for: Individual investors reviewing their own decisions, or an advisor's, without an advisor-tier subscription.

Pricing: A free account produces the decision report on a linked portfolio. Attribution is not held back for a paid tier.

Strengths

Freezes the portfolio as it stood immediately before each change and runs that buy-and-hold version forward alongside the real one, so every trading decision carries its own dollar figure against doing nothing
Adds a second baseline beyond the index: verified connected portfolios in the same standardized risk category
Applies identically to changes an advisor or workplace plan made on your behalf
Read-only by design and unable to move money in any linked account

Limitations

Does not produce the classic Brinson allocation, selection and interaction decomposition; the unit of analysis is the decision rather than the sector weight
No decision journal. It measures what a change did, not what you expected it to do
Requires a read-only brokerage connection; there is no manual-entry-only portfolio
Does not track real estate, private holdings or self-custody crypto wallets

Your current platform won't show you how your portfolio ranks against real investors in the same risk category. Create your secure Pure Benchmarks account and see exactly where you stand.

See Your Free Benchmark Report

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between Sharesight and Stock Rover?

Sharesight is the strongest record of what happened, which is the input attribution needs, rather than attribution itself. Stock Rover is a research and screening platform whose Trade Evaluator scores individual trades against an index rather than against the portfolio you gave up. On the capability list scored here they overlap on 3 and differ on 0.

Is Sharesight or Stock Rover better value?

Sharesight: free plan up to 10 holdings, paid plans above that. A free plan tracks up to 10 holdings with no credit card. Benchmarking is listed on the Starter plan and above. Stock Rover: premium at $17.99 per month. Essentials is $7.99 per month, Premium $17.99 and Premium Plus $27.99, with annual and two-year billing reducing the rate. The Trade Evaluator specifically requires Premium or above. Value depends on which of the differing capabilities you will actually use, not on the headline price.

Can Sharesight or Stock Rover compare my portfolio to other real investors?

Neither does. Both compare you against an index or a model allocation rather than against other real portfolios. That comparison is what Pure Benchmarks, our own product, is built to provide, by sorting connected portfolios into nine standardized risk categories and ranking inside them.

How were Sharesight and Stock Rover compared?

Both were scored against the same performance attribution capability list, checked against each vendor's own published pages. Anything a vendor does not publish is marked as unlisted rather than estimated. Pure Benchmarks is included as our own product with its gaps shown in the same table.

Keep exploring

See how a specific firm's advisor decisions compare to other firms:

New here? Read the portfolio benchmarking FAQ or the Pure Benchmarks blog.

This page is an information baseline for comparison only. It is not investment advice and not a recommendation to buy, sell, replace, or transfer any specific asset, account, or firm. Past performance does not guarantee future results. All figures shown are illustrative.