Relative Strength Index: Yahoo vs Google Finance
"Google's RSI is using a 10 period on 2 minute bars - i.e. it is based upon the last 20 minutes of data. Yahoo's RSI is using a 14 period lookback on an undetermined timeframe (you could maybe mouse-over and see what incremental part of the chart is giving) and given the ""choppier"" price chart, probably 30 second or 1 minute bars.   Given the difference in both the period specified and the periodicity of the charts - you should expect different results." Look at the 'as of'.  Google's as of is 11:27 whil Yahoo's is 11:19.  Given the shape of the Google curve, it looks to me that Yahoo's may well drop that much in the next 8 minutes. In fact, looking at it now, Yahoo's algorithm showed it as about 30 at 11:24, before going back up again some.  It may not have been identical to Google's, but it was certainly close.
Yes, it depends on the fund it's trying to mirror.  The ETF for the S&P that's best known (in my opinion) is SPY and you see the breakdown of its holdings.  Clearly, it's not an equal weighted index. "I went to Morningstar's ""Performance"" page for FUSEX (Fideltiy's S&P 500 index fund) and used the ""compare"" tool to compare it with FOSFX and FWWFX, as well as FEMKX (Fidelity Emerging Markets fund).  According to the data there, FOSFX outperformed FUSEX in 2012, FEMKX outperformed FUSED in 2010, and FWWFX outperformed FUSEX in both 2010 and 2012.  When looking at 10- and 15-year trailing returns, both FEMKX and FWWFX outperformed FUSEX. What does this mean?  It means it matters what time period you're looking at.  US stocks have been on an almost unbroken increase since early 2009.  It's not surprising that if you look at recent returns, international markets will not stack up well.  If you go back further, though, you can find periods where international funds outperformed the US; and even within recent years, there have been individual years where international funds won. As for correlation, I guess it depends what you mean by ""low"".  According to this calculator, for instance, FOSFX and FUSEX had a correlation of about 0.84 over the last 15 years.  That may seem high, but it's still lower than, say, the 0.91 correlation between FUSEX and FSLCX (Fideltiy Small Cap).  It's difficult to find truly low correlations among equity funds, since the interconnectedness of the global economy means that bull and bear markets tend to spread from one country to another.  To get lower correlations you need to look at different asset classes (e.g., bonds). So the answer is basically that some of the funds you were already looking at may be the ones you were looking for.  The trick is that no category will outperform any other over all periods.  That's exactly what volatility means --- it means the same category that overperforms in some periods will underperform in others.  If international funds always outperformed, no one would ever buy US funds.  Ultimately, if you're trying to decide on investments for yourself, you need to take all this information into account and combine it with your own personal preferences, risk tolerance, etc. Anecdotally, I recently did some simulation-based analyses of Vanguard funds using data from the past 15 years.  Over this period, Vanguard's emerging markets fund (VEIEX) comes out far ahead of US funds, and is also the least-correlated with the S&P 500.  But, again, this analysis is based only on a particular slice of time." If you use Google Finance, you will get incorrect results because Google Finance does not show the dividend history. Since your requirement is that dividends are re-invested, you should use Yahoo Finance instead, downloading the historical 'adjusted' price. Your analysis is correct.  The income statement from Google states that LinkedIn made $3.4 million in 2010 - the same number you backed into by using the P/E ratio.  As you point out, the company seems overvalued compared to other mature companies.  There are companies, however, that posts losses and still trade on exchanges for years.  How should these companies be valued?  As other posters have pointed out there are many different ways to value a company.  Some investors may be speculating on substantial growth.  Others may be speculating on IPO hype. Amazon did not make a profit until 2003.  Its stock had been around for years before that and even split many times.  If you bought the stock in 1998 and still have it you would be doing quite well. What a pointless list!  It's ranked by total short interest outstanding.  That's completely meaningless.  For instance, a $1 billion company with $1 billion in shorts (meaning the market thinks it's bankrupt) would be ranked much better than a $100 billion company with $1.1 billion in short interest.  tl;dr:  pure and utter bullshit "Google Docs spreadsheets have a function for filling in stock and fund prices.  You can use that data to graph (fund1 / fund2) over some time period. Syntax: =GoogleFinance(""symbol"", ""attribute"", ""start_date"", ""num_days|end_date"", ""interval"") where: This analysis won’t include dividends or distributions. Yahoo provides adjusted data, if you want to include that." The biggest issue with Yahoo Finance is the recent change to the API in May. The data is good quality, includes both dividend/split adjusted and raw prices, but it's much more difficult to pull the data with packages like R quantmod than before.  Google is fine as well, but there are some missing data points and you can't unadjust the prices (or is it that they're all unadjusted and you can't get adjusted? I can't recall). I use Google at home, when I can't pull from Bloomberg directly and when I'm not too concerned with accuracy.  Quandl seems quite good but I haven't tried them. There's also a newer website called www.alphavantage.co, I haven't tried them yet either but their data seems to be pretty good quality from what I've heard. When you look at the charts in Google Finance, they put the news on the right hand side. The time stamp for each news item is indicated with a letter in the chart. This often shows what news the market is reacting to. In your example:  Clicking on the letter F leads to this Reuters story: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/04/usa-housing-s-idUSWAT01486120110204 On Monday, the 27th of June 2011, the XIV ETF underwent a 10:1 share split. The Yahoo Finance data correctly shows the historic price data adjusted for this split.  The Google Finance data does not make the adjustment to the historical data, so it looks like the prices on Google Finance prior to 27 June 2011 are being quoted at 10 times what they should be.   Coincidentally, the underlying VIX index saw a sudden surge on the Friday (24 June) and continued on the Monday (27 June), the date that the split took effect.  This would have magnified the bearish moves seen in the historic price data on the XIV ETF. Here is a link to an article detailing the confusion this particular share split caused amongst investors.  It appears that Google Finance was not the only one to bugger it up.  Some brokers failed to adjust their data causing a lots of confusion amongst clients with XIV holdings at the time. This is a recurring problem on Google Finance, where the historic price data often (though not always) fails to account for share splits. I'm not 100% familiar with the index they're using to measure hedge fund performance, but based on the name alone, comparing market returns to *market neutral* hedge fund returns seems a bit disingenuous.  That doesn't mean the article is wrong, and they have a point about the democratization of data, but still. This didn't answer his question. Also, while I agree with you that the Dow is meaningless (and your explanation why). In the investment industry, we don't only focus on the S&amp;P Index.. Many have a specific benchmark they aim to outperform that matches their investment strategy (i.e. Russell Mid Cap Value, Russell 3000, etc.). I agree with @Turukawa that the x-axes need to be the same to make a direct comparison.  However, the graphs you linked make me think of introductory calculus:  If you time averaged plots, speculative investments (gold, housing) seem to have many large concave up time periods and the dow jones has many concave down sections.  Using the concavity test: If the first derivative tells you about the rate of change, the second derivative tells you about the rate of change of rate of change.  Remember back to Physics 101:  1st derivative is velocity & second derivative is acceleration.   It would be interesting to have the same time scales for your plots & compare these accelerations between the two.  I suspect the more volatile investments would have larger (in magnitude) accelerations during boom/bust cycles than less speculative investments. On closer look, it appears that Google Finance relies on the last released 10-k statement (filing date 10/30/2013), but outstanding shares as of last 10-Q statement. Using these forms, you get ($37,037M / 5.989B ) = $6.18 EPS. I think this is good to note, as you can manually calculate a more up to date EPS value than what the majority of investors out there are relying on. "I use Google Finance too. The only thing I have problem with is dividend info which it wouldn't automatically add to my portfolio. At the same time, I think that's a lot to ask for a free web site tool. So when dividend comes, I manually ""deposit"" the dividend payment by updating the cash amount. If the dividend comes in share form, I do a BUY at price 0 for that particular stock. If you only have 5 stocks, this additional effort is not bad at all. I also use the Hong Kong version of it so perhaps there maybe an implementation difference across country versions. Hope this helps. CF" Still working on exact answer to question....for now: (BONUS) Here is how to pull a graphical chart with the required data: Therefore: As r14 = the indicator for RSI.  The above pull would pull Google,   6months, line chart, linear, large, with a 50 day moving average, a   200 day exponential moving average, volume, and followed up with RSI. Reference Link:  Finance Yahoo! API's