Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Discretionary · ·
$22.21
▲ $0.90 (+4.2%)
Market data updated: 09/19 03:14 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/18/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
$55.74M
Day Range
$21.26 - $22.30
52-Week Range
$12.42 - $31.88
Beta
—
Next Earnings
04.11.2026
Support
$16.38
Resistance
$21.76
ACFN is a stock from the Consumer Cyclical sector — Retail, automotive, and leisure — demand rises and falls with economic sentiment and consumers' disposable income.
-27.2% (1Y)
Strengths: 16/27 factors positiveRisk: Medium
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
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Operating margin stability
Operating margin is stable or improving over time
Quality
Biggest negative driver
Daily volatility (ATR)
ATR: 5.9% of price
Risk
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
NO RELIABLE ECHO FOUND
Only 2 historical analog(s) found after removing overlapping dates — too few for a statistically meaningful comparison.
Historical matches considered: 2
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
66
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🐂🐻 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.
🧬 STOCK DNA
This stock's profile across 8 real dimensions — a research tool, not a recommendation
Growth
40
Quality
58
Value
50
Momentum
83
Risk
48
Sentiment
86
Fundamental
76
Institutional
No data available
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
Not enough comparably-scored stocks yet to show similar matches.
This stock hasn't been analyzed by StockIQAI's movement engine yet — coverage is still expanding. Check back soon.
Recent media coverage of Acorn Energy, Inc. has focused on its financial performance and strategic acquisitions. The company saw a decline in Q2 2026 earnings and revenues compared to the prior year, prompting analyst discussions about growth challenges. However, Acorn highlighted increasing high-margin, recurring revenue from monitoring services and announced a partnership for new generator solutions, alongside the launch of its OMNI360 platform. Additionally, it secured full ownership of OmniMetrix subsidiary, signaling expansion efforts.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Acorn Energy, Inc.. News trend score: 86. Reason: 9 of the last 19 articles are positive, versus 3 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
38
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
40
Psychology
58
Fundamentals
76
Technical
83
Valuation
50
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price (3M)
+31%
Market Narrative
72
Fundamental Reality
40
Narrative Gap
+32
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior for ACFN suggests a **psychological tug-of-war** between speculative interest (FOMO) and potential distress (Panic Selling), both fueled by elevated volume and mixed momentum. The narrative gap (15-point discrepancy) implies traders may be overestimating positive catalysts relative to technical realities. Euphoria lingers despite weak momentum, hinting at detached optimism, while the lack of herding or anchoring suggests no clear consensus. The key open question: *Is the volume spike driven by speculative chasing or forced liquidation?*
Updated: 09/08/2026, 10:01 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Acorn Energy (NASDAQ:ACFN) reported quarterly earnings of $0.12 per share, a 57.14% decrease over earnings of $0.28 per share from the same period last year."
"Acorn’s Q2 EPS of $0.12 reflects increasing high-margin, recurring monitoring revenue."
"Acorn Secures 100% Ownership of OmniMetrix Subsidiary via Purchase of Remaining 1% Stake"
📈 6D 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 — 62/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The methodologies split sharply on ACFN, with some models seeing cautious optimism while others flag it as risky or overvalued. Charles Mackay and Samuel Armstrong Nelson both score it high (71), suggesting it avoids crowd-driven frenzy and sits in a favorable cycle position—likely because it doesn’t exhibit extreme speculative behavior. In contrast, Peter Lynch and Morgan Housel (score: 0) dismiss it outright, arguing it lacks Lynch’s ‘growth at a reasonable price’ and Housel’s patience-friendly stability. The middle ground—Fisher (59), Marks (48), and Bagehot (53)—acknowledges strengths (solid business, decent liquidity) but warns of overpricing or cyclical risks. Meanwhile, Graham’s methods (31–33) and Livermore’s (47) outright rejection highlight concerns about valuation and trend clarity, while Veblen and the efficient-market camp (45) question whether growth will translate to profit or justify active picking over passive indexing.
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 62
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 59
Solid, but not the exceptional quality Fisher looked for
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 55
Mixed case — the evidence for picking this stock over an index is not strong
Key question
Do I actually have an edge here, or do I just think I do?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 53
Adequate but not exceptional liquidity
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 45
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
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)
🟡 42
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 38
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 37
Doesn't show the stability Smith's long-term case requires
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 37
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 31
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 25
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 25
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 22
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🔴 12
Cycle looks stretched toward overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 0
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?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 30%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 276 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟢 Most indicators support an uptrend (9 bullish · 2 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.
High 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
76.8%
Operating Margin
17.3%
Net Margin
21.9%
EBITDA Margin
18.3%
ROE
30.4%
ROA
18.8%
ROIC
—
EPS
$1.01
Cash
$4.45M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
1.83
Debt/Equity
—
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
$3.25
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$3.25
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 9 positive, 7 neutral, 3 negative out of the last 19 articles.
SeekingAlpha · 18.9.2026
Benzinga · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 2.9.2026
Zacks · 2.9.2026
Zacks · 25.8.2026
Yahoo · 24.8.2026
Zacks · 24.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 18.8.2026
Zacks · 10.8.2026
GuruFocus.com · 8.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 6.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 6.8.2026
Benzinga · 6.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 31.7.2026
Zacks · 10.7.2026
GlobeNewswire · 9.6.2026
Acorn Energy, Inc. (ACFN) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 66/100, 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.
ACFN currently scores 66/100 (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.
ACFN's technical score is 83/100, 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: Operating margin is stable or improving over time; Return on equity (ROE): 30.4% — strong; Current ratio: 1.83.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: ATR: 5.9% of price; Earnings per share (EPS) growth: -60.6%; Net income growth: -60.1%.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for ACFN.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clifford Tracy Simmons | Tax Withholding in Shares | 23.6.2026 | 515 | -515 | $16.33 |
| Clifford Tracy Simmons | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 23.6.2026 | 1,875 | +1,875 | $4.48 |
| Clifford Tracy Simmons | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 23.6.2026 | 1,875 | -1,875 | — |
| Clifford Tracy Simmons | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 23.6.2026 | 4,875 | +1,875 | $4.48 |
| Clifford Tracy Simmons | Tax Withholding in Shares | 23.6.2026 | 4,360 | -515 | $16.33 |
| Clifford Tracy Simmons | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 23.6.2026 | 0 | -1,875 | — |
| Mohr Gary | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 5.2.2026 | 625 | -625 | — |
| ZENTMAN SAMUEL M | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 5.2.2026 | 625 | +625 | $4.96 |
| ZENTMAN SAMUEL M | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 5.2.2026 | 625 | -625 | — |
| Mohr Gary | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 5.2.2026 | 625 | +625 | $4.96 |
| Osterer Michael | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 5.2.2026 | 625 | +625 | $4.96 |
| Osterer Michael | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 5.2.2026 | 625 | -625 | — |
| ZENTMAN SAMUEL M | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 5.2.2026 | 7,242 | +625 | $4.96 |
| ZENTMAN SAMUEL M | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 5.2.2026 | 0 | -625 | — |
| Mohr Gary | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 5.2.2026 | 17,661 | +625 | $4.96 |
| Mohr Gary | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 5.2.2026 | 0 | -625 | — |
| Osterer Michael | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 5.2.2026 | 126,211 | +625 | $4.96 |
| Osterer Michael | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 5.2.2026 | 0 | -625 | — |
| Clifford Tracy Simmons | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.1.2026 | 25,000 | +25,000 | — |
| ZENTMAN SAMUEL M | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.1.2026 | 3,125 | +3,125 | — |
| LOEB JAN H | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.1.2026 | 25,000 | +25,000 | — |
| Rabover Peter | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.1.2026 | 3,125 | +3,125 | — |
| Osterer Michael | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.1.2026 | 3,125 | +3,125 | — |
| Mohr Gary | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.1.2026 | 3,125 | +3,125 | — |
| LOEB JAN H | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.1.2026 | 25,000 | +25,000 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
21,269 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 10,057 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
61.5% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 63.1% 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