Since value investing’s golden era, many things have changed: from the way individuals invest their savings, to the diversity of financial products available on the market, from the hierarchical and financial structure of the majority of the firms to the way how business is done, from the regulations that rule firms and the market, to the world economy in general, and finally, of course: the very philosophy behind value investing has also progressively changed. Only one thing does not seem to have changed: the performance criteria used to evaluate this investment theory. In recent years, when applied these criteria, the academia noticed value investing releveled relatively poor performance compared to what investors and the market were used to. But can these results be blindly trusted? When everything does seem to have changed, does it make sense to expect valid results applying the same criteria to completely different realities? That is what we propose ourselves to find out. In the present work we will provide an alternative framework to the one used by the academia over the years. We will expose some of the reasons that may motivate this (apparent) underperformance, and alternatives to overcome these difficulties. Our intention is clear: to evaluate if value investing has really lost its hedge, or if on the other hand, academics have just been measuring performance with outdated and unfitted criteria to the current reality.