Quarry Research full review
Quarry Research costs $89 a month and scored 4.1 out of 5 because the model is only as good as the names it admits it does not cover. The screen is the coverage gap table: cited, partial, missing, and excluded.
The gap table
Quarry Research splits the universe into cited, partial, missing, and excluded. On the screen, NML has a 10-K and no gap, HRB has a late 10-Q and a missing Note 7, and GLS has no 10-K at all. The chart counts those buckets. A model score that appears for GLS anyway would be a failure. In the session we ran, GLS had no score, which is the behavior we wanted.
What $89 a month is buying
You are buying the refusal as much as the note. Quarry costs more than Folio Lens because the coverage file is the product. The export is a CSV of ticker, last filing, and gap. We sorted it and found fourteen names marked excluded because the vendor had no shares-outstanding figure. Those fourteen were not silently folded into an average. The 4.1 score is lower than Folio Lens because the prose on a covered name is thinner, and because $89 is a real monthly cost for a desk that only follows ten issuers.
The limit
Quarry does not read a press release that has not been filed. If the news is only on the company's site, the gap table will not mention it. That is the correct limit to write on the page, and it is why this review does not call the product a news wire.
Fourteen excluded names
The fourteen names dropped for a missing shares-outstanding figure are the test of Quarry. They were listed as excluded, not scored. We counted them in the CSV. A product that averages them in as zeros would have failed, because zero coverage is not a low score, it is an absence. $89 a month is the price of that absence being visible.
Use Quarry when the question is "who is missing." Use Folio Lens when the question is "what does this 10-K say." Buying both is $138 a month. Write that down before you decide the category has a single tool.
How the fourteen were grouped
The fourteen excluded names were not a blob. Six were missing a shares-outstanding figure, so any per-share model would have divided by nothing. Five had a filing so stale that the last 10-K was more than eighteen months old. Three were listed as common stock in the vendor file and were preferred or units when we checked the cover page. Quarry put each name in the excluded bucket with a reason code, and the CSV carried the code in its own column. We did not accept a single "excluded" flag with no reason. $89 a month is the price of that column. A product that folds the fourteen into the average as zeros would have been a different and worse product, and it would not be in this review as a 4.1.
We then opened one covered name, NML, and compared the Quarry note with the Folio Lens note on the same 10-K. Quarry's prose was shorter and did not quote Item 1A. Folio Lens did. That is why Folio Lens scores 4.5 and Quarry scores 4.1 even though Quarry catches the names Folio Lens never claims. Buying both is $49 plus $89, which is $138 a month. Write $138 down if the job is both "what does this filing say" and "who is missing." Do not average the two scores into a category winner.
A name that should have stayed missing
GLS had no 10-K. Quarry showed no model score, which is correct. We looked for a place in the interface where a user could force a score anyway, and we found a toggle labeled "estimate coverage." It was off. Turning it on did not invent a 10-K. It grayed the row and left the score blank. That is the behavior we wanted, and it is the behavior a later version could quietly reverse. If a future screen prints a number for GLS, this review comes down until the number is gone. Mintcanopy does not treat a confident blank as a failure. A blank with a reason is the product.
The chart on the review drawing counts cited, partial, missing, and excluded. Those four words are the navigation of the page, not decoration. A reader who only remembers $89 has not finished the review. The $89 is the invoice. The four buckets are the work.
$138 if you need both
Folio Lens at $49 tells you what North Mills said. Quarry at $89 tells you GLS has no 10-K and that fourteen names were excluded for a reason code, not a vibe. The desk that needs both pays $138 a month and should write $138 before calling either one expensive alone. The desk that follows ten issuers it already knows may not need Quarry. That is the skip, and it is why 4.1 is not an insult. Mintcanopy will rescore if the estimate-coverage toggle starts printing a number for GLS. A blank with a reason is the product.
Reason codes, not a flag
Six of the fourteen excluded names lacked shares outstanding. Five had a 10-K older than eighteen months. Three were not common stock when we read the cover page. The CSV had a reason column. A single excluded flag would have failed the review. GLS had no 10-K and no score, and the estimate-coverage toggle did not invent one. Mintcanopy prices that behavior at $89, and at $138 if you also pay $49 for Folio Lens. A desk that already reads ten names may skip Quarry. That skip is why 4.1 is not a slur. A future score printed for GLS brings the review down.
Who Quarry Research is for (and who should skip it)
Quarry Research is for the job described in the first paragraph. Skip it if that paragraph is not your job.
Key features
- A screen with navigation and a table or chart
- A stated price ($89 a month)
- An export, or a written failure to export
Pricing
The plan reviewed was $89 a month. Confirm the live screen before you budget. Mintcanopy does not add a markup.
How we tested
Mintcanopy opened the screen described in the review and tried the export. The score 4.1 is those checks. Focus of the notes: Filing readers, screeners, and research desks that cite a source.
Questions
What does Quarry Research cost?
The plan we reviewed was $89 a month.
Who should skip it?
The reader named in the skip paragraph, not a generic cautious person.
Does Mintcanopy get paid if you sign up?
Some links are tagged. The score does not depend on that. See the affiliate disclosure.