Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$263.96
▼ $0.06 (-0.0%)
Market data updated: 09/20 04:07 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/20/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$466.45B
Day Range
$262.44 - $266.34
52-Week Range
$190.75 - $267.47
Beta
—
Next Earnings
29.10.2026
Support
$241.20
Resistance
$267.47
ABBV is a stock from the Healthcare sector — Pharmaceuticals, biotech, medical devices, and health insurance — less sensitive to economic cycles, but exposed to regulation and FDA approvals.
+18.9% (1Y)
Strengths: 13/32 factors positiveRisk: High
This score and all analysis on this page are for informational and educational purposes only and do not constitute investment advice. Read the full disclaimer
Weighted: Technical 25% · Fundamental 20% · Growth 15% · Valuation 15% · News 10% · Quality 10% · Risk 5%
Overall Score
🟡 Mixed
Technical Trend
🟢 Bullish
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Return on equity (ROE)
Return on equity (ROE): 128.7% — strong
Fundamental
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $121.61 vs. price $263.96 (-53.9%)
Fair Value
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
88/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
92/100
Analog Quality
-1.3%
Median 40D Outcome
69/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
40%
+3.2% … +8.6%
🟡 Base
7%
+0.4% … +0.4%
🔴 Bearish
53%
-7.4% … -2.4%
📌 Bottom line: Out of 15 similar historical cases for this stock, 40% (95% CI 20%–64%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of -1.1%.
Echo #1 — Trend Acceleration
10 occurrence(s) · 50% historical success
Historical outcome rate is not a probability — it's what happened in this specific historical sample, with a 95% confidence range.
| Horizon | Positive rate (95% CI) | Median | 25th–75th pct | Baseline median |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5D | 33% (15%–58%) | -0.4% | -1.5% … +2.5% | +0.4% |
| 10D | 47% (25%–70%) | +0.4% | -4.7% … +3.6% | +0.9% |
| 20D | 40% (20%–64%) | -1.1% | -4.6% … +4.1% | +1.3% |
| 40D | 40% (20%–64%) | -1.3% | -8.4% … +9.7% | +2.4% |
| 60D | 40% (20%–64%) | -6.2% | -7.6% … +5.9% | +2.0% |
Sample size: 15 analogs, each at least 10 trading days apart (no double-counted overlapping events).
What happened after each historical match (20-day return)
| Date | Similarity | Regime | 20D outcome | 60D outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-01-08 | 88/100 | Uptrend | +11.8% | -7.3% |
| 2024-09-30 | 88/100 | Uptrend | -3.9% | -8.9% |
| 2017-12-19 | 86/100 | Uptrend | +6.9% | +14.4% |
| 2021-01-05 | 85/100 | Uptrend | +0.4% | +1.9% |
| 2017-12-01 | 84/100 | Uptrend | +2.2% | +18.2% |
| 2024-03-11 | 84/100 | Uptrend | -5.3% | -7.9% |
| 2020-01-09 | 84/100 | Uptrend | +2.3% | -16.1% |
| 2022-02-01 | 84/100 | ✓ Uptrend | +9.2% | +14.1% |
| 2021-08-19 | 83/100 | Consolidation | -8.6% | -0.8% |
| 2024-04-02 | 83/100 | Uptrend | -10.0% | -6.5% |
| 2021-07-08 | 82/100 | Consolidation | -1.1% | -6.2% |
| 2021-02-26 | 82/100 | Consolidation | -1.6% | +7.6% |
| 2025-09-16 | 81/100 | Uptrend | +6.0% | +4.1% |
| 2025-12-26 | 79/100 | Consolidation | -2.6% | -9.9% |
| 2026-03-03 | 79/100 | ✓ Uptrend | -7.0% | -6.5% |
Every accepted match is compared to today across 6 domains (price structure, momentum, technical, volatility, volume, relative strength) using z-scored feature distances — no single indicator dominates. Matches within 10 trading days of each other count as one event, not independent evidence. Outcome rates use a Wilson confidence interval (never a raw percentage alone), the mean return is winsorized against extreme outliers, and "Analog Quality" separately captures sample size, data completeness, and regime match — distinct from raw similarity. Relative strength is measured against SPY and against XLV (this stock's sector).
Cross-stock analogs — real other companies, not this stock's own history.
TIME ECHO identifies historical situations that resemble the current market state. Historical outcomes are not guarantees of future performance. Similarity does not imply causation, and results may change as new data becomes available.
🗓️ What Changed This Week
🌱 Building History
We don't have a real data point from a week ago for this stock yet. The weekly comparison will appear once enough history has accumulated.
📊 Score History
59
Today
58
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🔎 What Changed (vs. 30 days ago)
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
25d ago · $266.09
Evidence: 9 bullish / 3 bearish technical signals agreeing
What happened after
26d ago · $264.52
Evidence: תבנית שמתאימה לשלב חלוקה מוקדם/אמצעי — טווח מסחר אחרי עלייה עם מחזור מסחר יורד.
What happened after
26d ago · $264.52
Evidence: 10 bullish / 2 bearish technical signals agreeing
What happened after
27d ago · $262.82
Evidence: תבנית שמתאימה לשלב חלוקה מוקדם/אמצעי — טווח מסחר אחרי עלייה עם מחזור מסחר יורד.
What happened after
27d ago · $264.96
Evidence: 9 bullish / 1 bearish technical signals agreeing
What happened after
28d ago · $264.96
Evidence: 9 bullish / 1 bearish technical signals agreeing
What happened after
29d ago · $264.96
Evidence: 9 bullish / 1 bearish technical signals agreeing
What happened after
32d ago · $264.97
Evidence: 8 bullish / 3 bearish technical signals agreeing
What happened after
32d ago · $257.32
Evidence: +3.2pp vs. sector average today
What happened after
32d ago · $257.32
Evidence: 4 bullish / 6 bearish technical signals agreeing
What happened after
🐂🐻 Investment Thesis
🐂 Bull Case
🐻 Bear Case
🔍 What Could Prove This Wrong
This isn't a price-direction forecast — just a synthesis of real, already-computed data, and future conditions that could change the picture.
🕰️ StockIQ Time Machine
What did StockIQ know — and when? Pick a date from the real accumulated history.
As of August 18, 2026
Then
50
$257.89
Now
59
$263.96
What happened since
Signals detected by this date
No signals detected by this date
🧬 STOCK DNA
This stock's profile across 8 real dimensions — a research tool, not a recommendation
Growth
34
Quality
42
Value
33
Momentum
88
Risk
36
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
57
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING ABBV...
Recent media coverage of AbbVie highlights its strong stock performance and investor appeal, particularly through its **Skyrizi** drug, which accounts for about a third of its 2026 revenue, sparking debate over its reliance on a single product. Analysts like BofA Securities have raised its price target to $282, while JPMorgan suggests healthcare stocks like AbbVie could benefit from sector rotation. The company is also noted for its **13-year streak of dividend growth**, positioning it as a competitive dividend buy compared to peers like Pfizer. Additionally, AbbVie is featured in reports on the **rheumatoid arthritis market**, reflecting its role in developing targeted therapies amid unmet patient needs.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about AbbVie. News trend score: 100. Reason: 13 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 4 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
37
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
36
Psychology
73
Fundamentals
57
Technical
88
Valuation
33
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
Price (3M)
+22%
Market Narrative
78
Fundamental Reality
36
Narrative Gap
+42
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
ABBV’s dominant herding behavior reflects relative underperformance (-4.4% vs. peers’ -3.0%) without extreme panic or FOMO. Overconfidence and anchoring may persist due to high valuation (+105% DCF) and proximity to support, while muted volume and neutral sentiment keep panic subdued. The key question: will traders exit underperformance or double down on overvalued fundamentals? Narrative-reality gap (20) hints at potential misalignment between perception and fundamentals.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 01:02 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"about a third of guided 2026 revenue comes from one drug"
"AbbVie's dividend growth is superior... 13 straight years of dividend hikes"
"Rheumatoid Arthritis Market Forecast to Reach New Growth Milestones Through 2036, Driven by Targeted Therapies"
"Eli Lilly and AbbVie among stocks that could benefit from renewed sector rotation"
📈 18D Investor Psychology
Signal classification confidence: High (confidence in the behavioral read, not a price prediction). Describes observable market behavior, not what any individual investor thinks, and is not a buy/sell signal.
🏛️ Investor DNA — Historical Investors
A Historical Strategy Simulation: assuming each investor follows their documented principles, how would they rate this stock today? This is not a prediction of what they would actually do.
🟢 Best match
Jesse Livermore — 56/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor) — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Based on the documented principles of Burton Malkiel & John Bogle, the model estimates a relatively strong case for deviating from a broad index, reflected in a score of 73 and a supportive verdict. In contrast, investors such as Howard Marks, Veblen, and Loeb score below 40, with verdicts flagging late‑cycle risk, growth‑for‑its‑own‑sake, and capital‑threatening risk, indicating a more cautious stance. Mid‑range scores from Jesse Livermore and Edgar Lawrence Smith suggest uncertainty or only moderate suitability, while the lowest scores from Graham, Bagehot, and others signal fundamental defensive and liquidity concerns that would keep those investors out. Overall, the divergence arises because the efficient‑market view tolerates modest upside, whereas value‑, cycle‑, and risk‑focused methodologies highlight overvaluation, volatility, and insufficient safety margins.
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟢 71
A real, well-supported case — deviating from a broad index may be justified here
Key question
Do I actually have an edge here, or do I just think I do?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 56
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 44
Reasonable but not a clear long-term holding
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 43
Pattern consistent with a crowd delusion Mackay would flag
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 41
Somewhere in the middle of the cycle
Key question
Where are we in the cycle right now — near a hot extreme, or a cold one?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 36
Pattern Veblen would flag as growth pursued for its own sake
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 32
Risk profile Loeb would flag as a real threat to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 32
The kind of volatility that tends to shake patient holders out
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 27
No real setup here — the discipline Schwager's wizards shared would say stay out
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 21
Risk/valuation combination Marks would flag as a caution sign
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 18
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🔴 17
Cycle looks stretched toward overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 15
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 0
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 0
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 0
Not statistically cheap enough for the Enterprising Investor's looser safety bar
Key question
Is the stock statistically cheap enough to justify the extra risk?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 300 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟢 Most indicators support an uptrend (10 bullish · 1 bearish · 1 neutral)
A market-structure read based purely on real price and volume data — not full classic Wyckoff schematic identification (Phase A-E), but a quantitative analysis of what can reliably be computed: trading ranges, "effort vs. result", volume within the range, and Spring/Upthrust detection.
The stock is in a clear uptrend with no defined trading range in the period examined.
Low confidence
The Wyckoff Method, developed by Richard Wyckoff in the early 20th century, reads the balance of supply and demand through price and volume, based on the premise that large investors ("smart money") quietly accumulate shares before rallies and quietly distribute them before declines. The read here is based solely on real price and volume data — full, precise identification of classic Wyckoff patterns (such as Phases A-E) requires human chart-reading experience and judgment, so this is an approximate algorithmic read, not a substitute for professional analysis. This should not be considered investment advice.
Gross Margin
71.6%
Operating Margin
24.6%
Net Margin
6.9%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
128.7%
ROA
3.1%
ROIC
—
EPS
$2.37
Cash
$5.23B
Total Debt
$67.00B
Current Ratio
0.67
Debt/Equity
20.19
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 15.7.2026 | $1.730 |
| 14.7.2026 | $1.730 |
| 15.4.2026 | $1.730 |
| 14.4.2026 | $1.730 |
| 16.1.2026 | $1.730 |
| 15.1.2026 | $1.730 |
| 15.10.2025 | $1.640 |
| 14.10.2025 | $1.640 |
| 15.7.2025 | $1.640 |
| 14.7.2025 | $1.640 |
| 15.4.2025 | $1.640 |
| 14.4.2025 | $1.640 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$263.96
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$121.61
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-53.9%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
1.9%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1.9% | $18.16B | $16.66B |
| 2 | 2.1% | $18.54B | $15.61B |
| 3 | 2.2% | $18.95B | $14.64B |
| 4 | 2.4% | $19.40B | $13.74B |
| 5 | 2.5% | $19.89B | $12.93B |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$17.82B
Terminal Value
$313.60B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$203.82B
Enterprise Value
$277.39B
Net Debt
$61.77B
Equity Value
$215.62B
*The DCF model is an estimate based on assumptions — not a guaranteed forecast. You can change the assumptions to examine different scenarios.
Book Value per Share
$1.88
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$0.14
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 13 positive, 3 neutral, 4 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
AbbVie (ABBV) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 59/100, rated "Moderate". The score is a weighted average across up to 7 categories (technical, fundamental, growth, fair value, news, quality, risk), based on real data only.
ABBV currently scores 59/100 (Moderate) across the categories we measure. StockIQ doesn't give buy/sell recommendations — use this as one data point in your own research, not as investment advice.
Per StockIQ's DCF model, ABBV's estimated fair value is $121.61, which is 53.9% below the current price of $263.96. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
ABBV's technical score is 88/100, which currently reads as bullish — based on real price/volume signals (moving averages, RSI, MACD, and more), not a prediction of what happens next.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Return on equity (ROE): 128.7% — strong; Price is above the 50-day average; Price is above the 200-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $121.61 vs. price $263.96 (-53.9%); Operating margin is eroding over time; Current ratio: 0.67.
Yes — ABBV has a real recorded dividend payment history on StockIQ. See the Dividends section on this page for the actual per-share amounts and dates.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 1 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Donoghoe Nicholas | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 14.8.2026 | 32,710 | +32,710 | $79.02 |
| Donoghoe Nicholas | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 14.8.2026 | 32,710 | -32,710 | — |
| Donoghoe Nicholas | Open Market Sale | 14.8.2026 | 32,710 | -32,710 | $250.00 |
| Quaggin Susan E | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 62 | +62 | $251.64 |
| RAPP EDWARD J | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 134 | +134 | $251.64 |
| RAPP EDWARD J | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 29,236 | +134 | $251.64 |
| Quaggin Susan E | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 853 | +62 | $251.64 |
| FREYMAN THOMAS C | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.5.2026 | 1,118 | +1,118 | — |
| AUSTIN ROXANNE S | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.5.2026 | 1,118 | +1,118 | — |
| BURNSIDE WILLIAM H.L. | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.5.2026 | 1,118 | +1,118 | — |
| Davis Jennifer L. | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.5.2026 | 1,118 | +1,118 | — |
| MEYER MELODY B | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.5.2026 | 1,118 | +1,118 | — |
| Quaggin Susan E | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.5.2026 | 1,118 | +1,118 | — |
| Hart Brett J | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.5.2026 | 1,118 | +1,118 | — |
| RAPP EDWARD J | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.5.2026 | 1,118 | +1,118 | — |
| Roberts Rebecca B | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.5.2026 | 1,118 | +1,118 | — |
| WADDELL FREDERICK H | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.5.2026 | 1,118 | +1,118 | — |
| FALK THOMAS J | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.5.2026 | 1,118 | +1,118 | — |
| AUSTIN ROXANNE S | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.5.2026 | 39,576 | +1,118 | — |
| RAPP EDWARD J | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.5.2026 | 45,964 | +1,118 | — |
| FALK THOMAS J | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.5.2026 | 2,321 | +1,118 | — |
| WADDELL FREDERICK H | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.5.2026 | 30,076 | +1,118 | — |
| FREYMAN THOMAS C | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.5.2026 | 127,869 | +1,118 | — |
| Roberts Rebecca B | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.5.2026 | 14,846 | +1,118 | — |
| Hart Brett J | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.5.2026 | 20,590 | +1,118 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
19,514,024 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 22,547,839 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
59.5% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 59.7% the prior week
Based on daily short-sale volume (Reg SHO) — a different metric from the open short interest above: this is daily trading volume, not an open position, so it updates weekly rather than biweekly.
Full breakdown of every data type and its source: Data Sources · Methodology