The forecast horizon is simply how far ahead a forecast looks. Quantustik publishes three: 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year. Every forecast number you see — the target price, the confidence band, the probability of rising — belongs to one specific horizon, and means nothing without it.
A forecast without a horizon is meaningless. "This stock will reach $300" is not a claim you can act on or ever check. "This stock has a 50% chance of being above $300 within 6 months" is — because it names the deadline. The horizon is that deadline.
This is why every forecast figure on a Quantustik ticker page sits under a horizon selector. Switching from 3 months to 1 year does not refine the same forecast; it swaps to a different forecast, answering a different question, with its own target price, its own band, and its own track record.
The further out you look, the more can happen — so the range of plausible prices fans out. A one-year confidence interval is much wider than a three-month one for the same stock, and that is correct behaviour, not a defect. A model that gave you the same tight range at one year as at three months would be lying to you about how much it knows.
The practical consequence is a trade-off you have to make consciously. A short horizon gives you a tighter range but leaves less room for a thesis to play out. A long horizon gives a thesis room to work but a range so wide that it may not narrow the decision much. Neither is wrong; they suit different plans.
Match the horizon to the money, not to the mood. The right question is: "When do I actually need this capital back, and how long am I willing to sit through being wrong?" If you would panic-sell after six weeks of a position going nowhere, a one-year horizon is not really your horizon, whatever you tell yourself.
A concrete mismatch worth avoiding: reading the one-year forecast because it looks more optimistic, then trading it on a two-week timeframe. The one-year band is not a claim about the next two weeks, and the swing signal and its entry/stop levels are built on the near-term horizon for exactly that reason. Read the horizon that matches the holding period you will really have.
Because the horizons are separate forecasts, they are also scored separately. Our calibration page reports coverage for each horizon on its own row — how often the 90% band actually contained the realised price at 3 months, at 6 months, and at 1 year — and those numbers are not the same. A model can be well-calibrated at one horizon and poorly calibrated at another.
The habit worth building: before you trust a horizon's forecast, look at that horizon's coverage, not the model's coverage in general. They are different claims and the numbers are published separately precisely so you can tell them apart.
The most common error is treating the horizon as a schedule. If the 6-month forecast points up, that is not a claim that the price will rise steadily for six months. The path can fall for five months and recover in the sixth and still land inside the forecast. Anyone who sizes a position as though the forecast describes the journey, rather than the destination, will be stopped out by a path they were never promised would be smooth.
The second error is horizon-shopping: flicking between 3-month, 6-month and 1-year views until one of them agrees with what you already wanted to do, then quoting that one. Three forecasts give you three chances to find a number you like, which is not the same as three pieces of evidence. Pick the horizon that matches your holding period first, and read what it says second.
Three: 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year. Each is a separate forecast with its own target price, confidence band, and calibration track record.
Because more can happen in a year than in a quarter, so the range of plausible outcomes is genuinely wider. A model showing an equally tight band at one year would be overstating how much it knows.
The one that matches how long you will actually hold the position and how long you can tolerate being wrong. Reading a 1-year forecast while trading on a two-week timeframe is a mismatch — the near-term horizon and the swing signal are what describe the next few weeks.
No. The horizon is the deadline the forecast describes, not a schedule. The price can wander far from the target for most of the period and still finish inside the forecast band.
Browse all S&P 500 tickers to see this metric applied to individual companies.
Educational research only — not investment advice.