Mark Minervini Trend Template: What It Measures and What It Misses
Passing the Mark Minervini Trend Template is not permission to buy a stock. It is evidence that a stock satisfies a defined set of technical trend conditions.
That boundary matters because the template is often described as though it were a complete investing strategy. It is not. Moving averages, range position, and relative strength can reveal whether market behavior is aligned across several horizons. They cannot tell you whether the business is durable, the valuation is sensible, the trend is mature, or the position belongs in a particular portfolio.
The useful question is narrower:
Does the stock’s current price structure qualify under the Trend Template, and what remains unknown after the score is calculated?
That makes the model a focused extension of the broader momentum investing signals framework, not a replacement for complete stock analysis.
The Trend Template is a qualifier, not a complete strategy
The Trend Template is designed to identify stocks whose price structure resembles a confirmed multi-timeframe uptrend.
It checks whether:
- price is above important medium- and long-term moving averages;
- those moving averages are ordered constructively;
- the long-term average is rising;
- price remains meaningfully above its annual low;
- price remains reasonably close to its annual high;
- the stock demonstrates relative leadership;
- recent price behavior has not contradicted the larger structure.
These tests answer a technical qualification question. They do not produce an entry point, stop level, target price, or expected return.
A high score means more conditions agree. It does not mean every relevant investing question has been answered, nor does it measure how strongly each condition passed.
Where the template fits in Minervini’s broader philosophy
Mark Minervini’s broader Specific Entry Point Analysis, or SEPA, is more extensive than the Trend Template. His published methodology discusses company fundamentals, earnings quality, market leadership, chart setups, entry discipline, loss control, and risk management in addition to trend structure.
The Trend Template should therefore be described as one technical filter inside that broader philosophy. Saying that the template does not assess fundamentals is accurate. Saying that Minervini’s entire methodology ignores fundamentals would not be.
This distinction protects the reader from two opposite mistakes:
- treating the Trend Template as Minervini’s entire process;
- adding unrelated SEPA rules to a StockGeniuses score that is intentionally narrower.
This article concerns the Trend Template model used by StockGeniuses. It does not attempt to reproduce every element of Minervini’s trading method. The narrowness is deliberate: software can evaluate a defined technical contract consistently, but it should not imply that the contract represents the author’s complete philosophy.
Traditional eight criteria versus the StockGeniuses implementation
The traditional Trend Template is commonly presented as eight criteria. Price above the 150-day and 200-day moving averages is grouped into one test, followed by moving-average alignment, a rising 200-day average, range-position requirements, and relative strength.
StockGeniuses converts that framework into a deterministic nine-condition diagnostic.
The implementation:
- keeps price above the 150-day and 200-day averages as one combined condition;
- evaluates every condition as binary;
- adds a comparison with the adjusted close from 21 trading days earlier;
- uses 260 adjusted closes for its annual high and low;
- applies a liquidity gate before scoring;
- translates the number of passed conditions into an integer score from 0 to 10.
This is a transparent product adaptation. It should not be presented as Minervini’s verbatim scoring formula.
Whenever a public investing framework becomes software, two kinds of truth must remain separate. The philosophy may come from the original framework, while the exact data definitions, eligibility rules, missing-data behavior, and score construction belong to the implementation. Blurring them makes both the attribution and the output harder to trust.
The exact nine StockGeniuses conditions
All calculations are anchored to the latest completed trading session, identified as T-1.
| Condition | Exact test | What it examines |
|---|---|---|
| C1 | Price > SMA150 and Price > SMA200 | Price above both long-term baselines |
| C2 | SMA150 > SMA200 | Medium-term trend above long-term trend |
| C3 | Current SMA200 > SMA200 from 30 trading days earlier | Long-term trend direction |
| C4 | SMA50 > SMA150 and SMA50 > SMA200 | Shorter trend leading both longer trends |
| C5 | Price > SMA50 | Current price above its nearer trend baseline |
| C6 | Relative Strength Percentile >= 70 | Twelve-month leadership versus the Model 6 universe |
| C7 | Price >= 1.30 x 260-day low | Price at least 30% above its annual low |
| C8 | Price >= 0.75 x 260-day high | Price no more than 25% below its annual high |
| C9 | Price > Price from 21 trading days earlier | Positive short-term direction check |
Each condition receives either 1 or 0. There is no partial credit inside an individual condition.
This creates clarity, but it also creates threshold sensitivity. A stock one cent above a threshold passes. A stock one cent below it fails, even though the economic difference may be negligible.
How the score is calculated
Let each passed condition equal 1 and each failed condition equal 0.
Score Sum = 1.11 x total conditions passed
Final Score = rounded Score Sum
The final result is clamped between 0 and 10.
For example:
- five passed conditions produce
1.11 x 5 = 5.55, rounded to 6; - six passed conditions produce
1.11 x 6 = 6.66, rounded to 7; - eight passed conditions produce
1.11 x 8 = 8.88, rounded to 9; - nine passed conditions produce
1.11 x 9 = 9.99, rounded to 10.
The score is therefore a normalized condition count. It is not a probability, confidence level, expected return, or measure of how far each condition passed.
The traditional template is often used as a strict qualification screen in which every criterion matters. The StockGeniuses score serves a related but different purpose: it preserves partial trend information when only some conditions align. A score of 6 does not mean the stock has passed 60% of an investment thesis. It means the implemented model counted five passing technical conditions and normalized that count.
The same score can also conceal different structures. One stock might fail price above SMA50, proximity to the annual high, and recent direction. Another might pass all three but fail long-term moving-average alignment. Both can produce the same condition count while presenting different technical states. The checklist therefore carries information that the final number cannot preserve.
Interpreting the number correctly starts with the same discipline required when reading any stock-analysis model: establish what the output represents before assigning meaning to it.
Data eligibility comes before the checklist
A technically elegant formula is still unreliable when its inputs are incomplete.
The StockGeniuses model requires:
- at least 260 daily adjusted closes;
- enough history to calculate the 50-, 150-, and 200-day averages;
- the 200-day average from 30 trading days earlier;
- the adjusted close from 21 trading days earlier;
- a 260-day adjusted-close high and low;
- 90 days of daily dollar-volume data;
- a Relative Strength Percentile from the Model 6 universe.
Two conditions cause a hard Not Meaningful result:
- fewer than 260 adjusted-close observations;
- 90-day median daily dollar volume below $1 million.
These gates protect the score from false precision. A short price history cannot support the required long-term comparisons, while an illiquid security can produce price behavior that is difficult to interpret using the same assumptions as a liquid stock.
Weak price structure is not a hard failure. It should produce failed conditions and a lower valid score.
Relative strength is handled differently. If the required percentile is unavailable, C6 receives 0. Broad-market outperformance cannot be substituted for the required universe rank.
Micron example: historical leadership, partial current qualification
Micron Technology is a useful example because its historical return, current trend structure, and business results point to different conclusions.
Analysis snapshot: July 15, 2026 market close. Price calculations use adjusted closes ending on that date. Displayed numbers are rounded, but the condition audit uses unrounded values.
Micron input snapshot
| Input | July 15, 2026 value |
|---|---|
| Adjusted close at T-1 | $904.28 |
| Adjusted close at T-21 | $981.46 |
| SMA50 | $923.86 |
| SMA150 | $563.38 |
| SMA200 | $476.00 |
| SMA200 thirty trading days earlier | $343.10 |
| 260-day adjusted-close low | $104.71 |
| 260-day adjusted-close high | $1,213.37 |
| 90-day median daily dollar volume | approximately $32.53 billion |
| Twelve-month adjusted-price return | approximately 654.08% |
The history and liquidity gates pass comfortably. The remaining question is how many of the nine conditions pass.
Micron condition audit
| Condition | Test using the snapshot | Result |
|---|---|---|
| C1 | $904.28 > $563.38 and $904.28 > $476.00 | Pass |
| C2 | $563.38 > $476.00 | Pass |
| C3 | $476.00 > $343.10 | Pass |
| C4 | $923.86 > $563.38 and $923.86 > $476.00 | Pass |
| C5 | $904.28 > $923.86 | Fail |
| C6 | Model 6 RS Percentile >= 70 | Not publicly reproducible; treated as 0 when missing |
| C7 | $904.28 >= 1.30 x $104.71, or approximately $136.13 | Pass |
| C8 | $904.28 >= 0.75 x $1,213.37, or approximately $910.03 | Fail |
| C9 | $904.28 > $981.46 | Fail |
Five of the eight publicly reproducible price-structure conditions pass.
With C6 unavailable and therefore equal to 0:
1.11 x 5 = 5.55
The public-data reconstruction produces a final score of 6.
If the fully populated StockGeniuses Model 6 universe placed Micron at or above the 70th percentile, C6 would pass and six total conditions would produce a score of 7. The approximate 654% trailing return makes strong relative leadership plausible, but plausibility is not a reproducible percentile calculation.
The correct public conclusion is therefore:
Micron receives a reproducible score of 6 when the unavailable RS condition is scored 0; a fully populated StockGeniuses run could produce 7 if the exact RS percentile passes.
It would be inaccurate to silently assign C6 = 1 or to claim a definitive app score without the required universe. The distinction may look cautious, but it is fundamental: a model result is only reproducible when every claimed input follows the same data contract.
The threshold cliff hidden inside Micron’s result
Micron’s C8 condition requires the price to remain within 25% of the 260-day adjusted-close high.
The threshold was approximately:
0.75 x $1,213.37 = $910.03
Micron closed at $904.28, about $5.75 below the threshold. Expressed as range position, it was approximately 25.47% below the high rather than 25.00% or less.
That 0.47-percentage-point difference creates a full condition failure.
This is not a flaw unique to the Trend Template. Every deterministic screen needs boundaries. The practical issue is that a binary score hides distance from the cutoff. A stock barely failing C8 and one trading 60% below its high both receive 0 for that condition, even though their structures are not equivalent.
Crossing the threshold would change the score, but it would not create an equally abrupt change in the underlying economic or technical reality. The condition breakdown is therefore more informative than the final score alone.
What the Trend Template measures well
The model is useful when the investor wants a consistent answer to a narrow question: how complete is the stock’s technical trend alignment?
It captures several dimensions efficiently.
Multi-timeframe agreement
The ordering of price, SMA50, SMA150, and SMA200 reveals whether short-, medium-, and long-horizon structure generally points in the same direction.
Long-term trend direction
Comparing the current SMA200 with its value 30 trading days earlier prevents a stock from qualifying merely because price has bounced above a still-declining long-term average.
Range position
The low and high conditions ask whether the stock has moved decisively away from weakness while remaining reasonably close to leadership territory.
Relative leadership
C6 asks whether the stock’s twelve-month return ranks strongly within a defined universe, not merely whether its own return is positive.
Recent confirmation
The T-21 comparison prevents a strong long-term structure from receiving full credit when the latest month has weakened.
Together, these conditions create a reproducible technical qualification audit. They are more disciplined than describing a chart as simply “strong” or “weak,” because every label can be traced back to a dated rule.
What the Trend Template cannot tell you
The most important limitations are not defects. They are questions the model was never designed to answer.
It cannot evaluate business quality
Moving averages cannot reveal whether revenue growth is durable, margins are defensible, cash conversion is healthy, or management allocates capital well. Those questions require a separate business-quality review.
Micron illustrates the separation. Its fiscal Q3 2026 results included:
- revenue of $41.46 billion, compared with $9.30 billion a year earlier;
- GAAP net income of $28.24 billion;
- operating cash flow of $25.39 billion, compared with $4.61 billion a year earlier.
None of those figures changes a Trend Template condition. Strong results do not move price above SMA50 unless the market price actually does so.
It cannot evaluate valuation
A stock can satisfy every technical rule while carrying assumptions that leave little room for disappointment. It can also fail several rules without becoming fundamentally inexpensive.
The Trend Template should never be used to label a stock cheap or expensive.
It cannot measure financial resilience
Liquidity, leverage, capital intensity, refinancing exposure, and balance-sheet risk sit outside the score. A technical trend model cannot replace financial-strength and risk signals.
It cannot determine trend maturity
A high score says the conditions are aligned now. It does not identify whether the trend began recently, has already delivered most of its move, or is approaching exhaustion.
It cannot supply risk management or timing
The model does not calculate position size, stop placement, maximum acceptable loss, or entry quality. Those elements belong to a broader execution process, including Minervini’s wider methodology, not this score.
It cannot explain why price moved
Micron’s filing shows that its recent results were heavily influenced by dramatic changes in memory-product selling prices, while the company also identifies intense competition and future selling-price volatility as material risks. The Trend Template records the resulting market structure. It does not analyze the economic drivers underneath it.
That is the boundary between price action and business quality.
Trend Template versus CAN SLIM and broader momentum analysis
These frameworks overlap, but they do not answer the same question.
| Framework | Primary question | Evidence included |
|---|---|---|
| Momentum signals | What kinds of price, relative, fundamental, and regime evidence describe current strength? | Broad interpretation framework |
| Minervini Trend Template | Does the stock satisfy a defined technical trend structure? | Moving averages, range position, relative strength, recent price direction |
| CAN SLIM | Do growth, leadership, participation, and market evidence converge? | Earnings, revenue, supply and demand, leadership, institutions, market context |
The CAN SLIM model is broader because it explicitly includes company-growth and market-confirmation components. The Trend Template score is narrower and more technically concentrated.
The broader momentum framework examines several evidence layers. The Trend Template selects a specific subset of them and converts the result into a score. A narrower model is not necessarily weaker; it becomes easier to interpret correctly when its limited job remains visible.
How the model fits inside the StockGeniuses Momentum category
StockGeniuses combines three different momentum perspectives:
- Twin Momentum tests whether price momentum receives fundamental confirmation.
- Minervini Trend Template tests structural trend qualification.
- Dual Momentum tests absolute and relative leadership.
The broader nine-model comparison places that technical qualification question beside models that evaluate value, growth, dividends, financial health, and sentiment.
The Momentum Overall Score averages available model results when at least two models are valid.
Divergence remains informative. A high Minervini score with weak Twin Momentum can describe a clean technical trend without strong business confirmation. Strong Dual Momentum with a weaker Minervini result can describe return leadership without complete moving-average alignment.
The overall score does not erase those differences. A disciplined systematic stock analysis still asks what each component measured and what it left unresolved.
A disciplined way to interpret the score
Use the model in this order:
- Confirm data eligibility. Check the 260-day history and liquidity gate.
- Freeze the snapshot date. Moving averages and thresholds must share the same completed session.
- Review every condition. Do not begin with the final score.
- Preserve unrounded inputs. Test conditions before rounding values for display.
- Identify missing universe data. Do not infer Relative Strength Percentile.
- Measure distance from failed thresholds. A near miss and a large failure should not receive identical interpretation.
- Compare the pattern, not only the total. Two stocks with the same score may have failed materially different conditions.
- Separate technical qualification from business evidence. Review fundamentals, valuation, and financial risk independently.
- Place the result beside other momentum models. Agreement and divergence both contain information.
- Return to the thesis. A trend score is evidence, not an action.
For Micron, that sequence produces a useful state description: strong long-term moving-average structure, failed recent-price conditions, an unresolved universe-ranked RS input, and business evidence that requires separate analysis.
Qualification narrows the question; it does not answer it
The Mark Minervini Trend Template is valuable because it makes technical qualification explicit. It replaces vague chart descriptions with defined conditions and eligibility rules covering moving-average alignment, long-term trend direction, range position, relative leadership, liquidity, and recent price behavior.
Its discipline comes from narrowness. The score describes how many technical conditions pass. It does not determine business quality, valuation, trend maturity, portfolio fit, or what an investor should do next.
Micron demonstrates why the distinction matters. A stock can possess extraordinary historical leadership and record operating results while failing several current trend conditions. The score becomes useful when that disagreement is preserved rather than forced into a bullish or bearish verdict.
This article is educational and does not provide investment advice or a recommendation regarding Micron Technology or any other security.