We examine the relation between analyst reputation and their recommendation values. We measure personal reputation using the Institutional Investor All-American (AA) awards. Daily rebalanced portfolios of AA analysts’ recommendations yield significantly better risk-adjusted performance than those of non-AA analysts. AAs’ alphas are concentrated in the top-ranked (1stand 2nd-place) AAs; the lower-ranked (3rd-place and runner-up) AAs do not perform better than non-AAs. Alphas for all analyst groups fall as investors’ access to recommendation information is delayed. But the assessed performance differential between the top-ranked AAs and other analysts is only marginally larger for investors who have private, pre-release access to recommendations than for public investors. The top-ranked AAs are also more experienced and have longer tenure as AAs than the lower-ranked AAs. Our results hold for both tech and non-tech sectors, are moderately strengthened by trading-cost adjustments, and are robust to alternative portfolio construction methods. We conclude that the top-ranked AAs are more skilled and produce more valuable information than other analysts. While the institution-granted AA status is a noisy indicator of analyst skill overall, the top two ranks of this award are useful signals from which public investors can benefit.