IIARD International Institute of Academic Research and Development

International Journal of Engineering and Modern Technology (IJEMT )

E-ISSN 2504-8848
P-ISSN 2695-2149
VOL. 11 NO. 2 2025
DOI: 10.56201/ijemt.vol.11.no2.

---

Multicriteria Decision Analysis for Stock Selection A, Comparative Study of ELECTRE III with Veto, TOPSIS, and, PROMETHEE Methods

McKelly Tamunotena Pepple, Efiyeseimokumo Sample Ikeremo

---

Abstract

This paper explores the use of three multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) methods— ELECTRE III with veto, TOPSIS, and PROMETHEE—in ranking stocks within a sector. Each method evaluates stocks based on fundamental, performance, and technical criteria to identify top performers. ELECTRE III with veto emphasizes robustness, TOPSIS focuses on balanced performance, and PROMETHEE customizes rankings based on specific preferences. The analysis finds common high-ranking stocks like Apple, Universal Display, and Microsoft across all methods, while each method also uniquely highlights different stocks. The paper demonstrates how these MCDA methods provide comprehensive insights for informed stock investment decisions.

keywords:

Stock Selection, ELECTRE III, Veto, TOPSIS, PROMETHEE

---

.Rew, L. (1988). Intuition in decision making. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 20(3), 150–154.
Franco, L. A., & Montibeller, G. (2010). Problem structuring for multicriteria decision analysis
interventions. Wiley Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management Science.
Grace, S., Ehrgott, M., & Figueira, J. (2016). Multiple criteria decision analysis. Springer.
Justin, A. (2018). Decision analysis: Biennial survey demonstrates continuous advancement of
vital tools for decision makers, managers, and analysts. OR/MS Today.
Angeliki, K., Elias, C., Paris, F. A., & Polycarpos, P. (2016). Multicriteria for the selection of
the most appropriate energy crops: The case of Cyprus. International Journal of
Sustainable Energy, 35(1), 47–58.
Zhdanov, D., Bhattacharjee, S., & Bragin, M. A. (2022). Incorporating FAT and privacy-aware
AI modeling approaches into business decision-making frameworks. Decision Support
Systems, 155, 113715.
Buyukozkan, G. (2004). Multi-criteria decision making for e-marketplace selection. Internet
Research, 14(2), 139–154.
Kartal, H., Oztekin, A., Gunasekaran, A., & Cebi, F. (2016). An integrated decision analytic
framework of machine learning with multi-criteria decision making for multi-attribute
inventory classification. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 101, 599–613.
Mamoudan, M. M., Forouzanfar, D., Mohammadnazari, Z., Aghsami, A., & Jolai, F. (2021).
Factor identification for insurance pricing mechanism using data mining and multi-
criteria decision making. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing,
1–20.
Ozman, M., & Aydogan, E. A. (2020). Robust multi-criteria decision-making methodology for
real-life logistics center location problem. Artificial Intelligence Review, 53, 725–751.
Maretto, L., Fraccio, M., & Battini, D. (2022). A multi-criteria decision-making model based
on fuzzy logic and AHP for the selection of digital technologies. IFAC-PapersOnLine,
55(2), 319–324.
Bagga, P., Hans, R., & Joshi, A. (2019). QoS-based web services selection and multi-criteria
decision-making methods. International Journal of Interactive Multimedia and
Artificial Intelligence (IJIMAI).
Ceballos, B., Lamata, M. T., & Pelta, D. A. (2016). A comparative analysis of multi-criteria
decision-making methods. Progress in Artificial Intelligence, 5, 315–322.

DOWNLOAD PDF

---

Back