Skip to content
All library documents

Assessing the Reliability of Alpha Vantage Fundamental Data

Article Quant Q&A · Author: Chris Kiniry
Read the original

Summary

The discussion assesses whether Alpha Vantage balance-sheet data are dependable for analyzing stocks. The questioner compares reported debt fields for Exxon Mobil across two fiscal years with figures in the company’s annual filing and finds that the values do not align. The example raises a practical issue: similarly named fields may represent different accounting categories, so users need to understand the provider’s data definitions before drawing conclusions.

Replies offer limited evidence rather than a systematic accuracy study. One commenter says coverage is generally acceptable for large established firms but can be incomplete, citing a case where another company had only one year available. Another suggests SimFin as a similarly priced source with bulk downloads and an API. These are individual experiences, and the thread does not establish comparative accuracy, explain the debt-field discrepancy, or validate an alternative across firms and periods. Researchers should reconcile vendor fields with filings and assess coverage and definitions for their intended use.

Key ideas

  • Vendor fundamental data should be checked against company filings before analysis.
  • Debt fields with similar names may not map directly to reported balance-sheet line items.
  • Coverage can vary by company, so availability should be checked across the intended universe and history.
  • The discussion presents user anecdotes, not a systematic comparison of data vendors.

Tags

EquitiesUS marketsStatistics
Full text
# Is alpha vantage api for fundamental data reliable?


# Is alpha vantage api for fundamental data reliable?












Can anyone speak to the reliability of the Alpha Vantage (AV) api for fundamental stock data? I have tried for a couple of stocks to get balance sheet data, and it seems close to accurate but I feel like I either don't clearly understand the data dictionary or it is unreliable.

Here is a sample code to pull balance sheet data for XOM using R:

```
library(tidyverse)
library(httr)
library(jsonlite)
library(lubridate)
# Download Data ------------------------------------------------------------
my_api_key <- 'my_api_key'

url <- 'https://www.alphavantage.co/query?'

query <- list('function' = 'BALANCE_SHEET', 
              symbol = 'XOM',  
              apikey = my_api_key)

r <- GET(url = url, 
         query = query,
         accept_json())

j <- content(r, type = 'text', encoding = 'UTF-8') 

d <- fromJSON(j)

# Clean the data ----------------------------------------------------------
bs_quarterly <- d[[3]]

bs_quarterly <- tibble(bs_quarterly)

bs_quarterly <-
  bs_quarterly %>%
  mutate(fiscalDateEnding = ymd(fiscalDateEnding)) %>%
  mutate_at(.vars = -(1:2), .f = as.numeric)

# Review the data ---------------------------------------------------------
bs_quarterly %>%
  filter(fiscalDateEnding %in% 
           ymd(c('2020-12-31', '2019-12-31'))) %>%
  select(fiscalDateEnding, 
         currentDebt,
         shortTermDebt, 
         longTermDebt,
         shortLongTermDebtTotal)
```

Here is the output from that code:

Now if I go to the sec.gov website and look at the XOM 10-K report at this site: https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/34088/000003408821000012/xom-20201231.htm

This is what I see from the balance sheet (column 1 is 2020-12-31, and column 2 is 2019-12-31):

The long term debt for 12-31-2019 is listed as 24,672 in AV compared to 26,342 from the 10-k. I have no idea what the AV value of short term debt as 1,701 represents. The shortLongTermDebtTotal of 26,273 is the sum of these two AV values, but this seems to grossly understate the company's debt.

My findings are the AV fundamental data is arbitrarily close to accurate but not reliable to do any real analysis with. Please let me know if I am missing something, or what other users think of this api data quality.

If AV is unreliable, is there a free or reasonably priced alternative that is reliable?

## Answer by james6125 (score 0)

https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/71315

It's mostly OK for larger, more established companies, but see here:

For 'DOCN' why do they have only 1 year?

vs Yahoo has 5:

I don't believe this is because of the free tier. That's just what they have available. You'll need to see if it works for you. I am not a big fan. Also I emailed support but they never got back to me. Again I was testing waters and was a free tier customer. I dunno, maybe they are awesome. That was my experience.

## Answer by flashback (score 0)

https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/78735

https://simfin.com has quite robust fundamental data in the same price range as AV. Also bulk download and web API.

Shown in full with attribution under the source's licence. Licence: CC BY-SA 4.0 (Stack Exchange)

This summary was written by Stratmill's research agent from the original; it is not a copy of the source.