Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
· ·
$2.63
▼ $0.05 (-1.9%)
Market data updated: 09/19 02:19 PM
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
$267.58M
Day Range
$2.63 - $2.81
52-Week Range
$2.10 - $4.00
Beta
—
Next Earnings
02.11.2026
Support
$2.12
Resistance
$3.00
+4.4% (1Y)
🟡 Moderate
Strengths: 2/13 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
🔴 Bearish
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Price vs. SMA 50
Price is above the 50-day average
Technical
Biggest negative driver
Daily volatility (ATR)
ATR: 5.0% 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.
ACIU demonstrates a robust overall investor score of 85, driven primarily by its strong technical performance and overwhelmingly positive news sentiment. The technical category scores an impressive 89, reflecting a bullish setup with the stock price firmly above both its 50-day and 200-day moving averages, alongside a positive MACD histogram and a healthy RSI of 62.5. This suggests sustained upward momentum and a favorable short-term outlook. Meanwhile, the news category achieves a perfect score of 100, fueled by recent positive headlines—particularly the strong survival data for a NSCLC drug outperforming Keytruda in China and a 13.4% rally in related stocks—indicating a tailwind from clinical advancements and market momentum. However, the risk category drags the score down to 34, with notable concerns like a relatively low ATR (5.1% of price) and a weak Calmar ratio (-0.07 over three years), signaling potential volatility and historical underperformance. The combination of technical strength and positive news contrasts sharply with elevated risk metrics, creating a nuanced picture of a stock with upward momentum but structural vulnerabilities.
The stock price is above both the 50-day and 200-day moving averages, the MACD histogram is positive, and the RSI (62.5) indicates healthy upward momentum. The %K value (75.2) remains neutral, reinforcing a balanced short-term trend.
This technical alignment suggests a strong bullish bias, signaling potential for continued price appreciation in the near term.
All recent news items are either positive or neutral, with two major positive headlines highlighting clinical trial success and market gains in related stocks, reinforcing investor confidence.
Positive news sentiment directly boosts investor perception and can drive short-term price appreciation, particularly in biotech or pharmaceutical sectors.
The ATR (5.1% of price) is low, indicating limited volatility, while the Calmar ratio (-0.07) reflects poor risk-adjusted returns over three years, with a historical maximum drawdown of 70.4%.
These metrics highlight significant long-term risk and volatility concerns, which could undermine investor confidence despite short-term gains.
StockIQ conclusion
ACIU presents a compelling short-term case supported by strong technical indicators and positive news, particularly in the biotech sector. However, its long-term risk profile is weakened by a poor Calmar ratio and historical volatility, alongside declining trading volume. The stock’s current score reflects a balanced mix of bullish momentum and structural vulnerabilities, requiring careful monitoring of future developments to assess its sustainability.
Written automatically from the computed data shown on this page only — not investment advice.
🗓️ 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
48
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
10d ago · $2.78
Evidence: המניה במגמת עלייה ברורה ללא טווח מסחר מוגדר בטווח הזמן שנבדק.
What happened after
10d ago · $2.78
Evidence: 9 bullish / 1 bearish technical signals agreeing
What happened after
10d ago · $2.81
Evidence: attention score 67/100
What happened after
11d ago · $2.86
Evidence: המניה במגמת עלייה ברורה ללא טווח מסחר מוגדר בטווח הזמן שנבדק.
What happened after
11d ago · $2.86
Evidence: 10 bullish / 1 bearish technical signals agreeing
What happened after
12d ago · $2.86
Evidence: המניה במגמת עלייה ברורה ללא טווח מסחר מוגדר בטווח הזמן שנבדק.
What happened after
12d ago · $2.86
Evidence: 10 bullish / 1 bearish technical signals agreeing
What happened after
13d ago · $2.86
Evidence: המניה במגמת עלייה ברורה ללא טווח מסחר מוגדר בטווח הזמן שנבדק.
What happened after
13d ago · $2.86
Evidence: 10 bullish / 1 bearish technical signals agreeing
What happened after
14d ago · $2.86
Evidence: המניה במגמת עלייה ברורה ללא טווח מסחר מוגדר בטווח הזמן שנבדק.
What happened after
14d ago · $2.86
Evidence: 10 bullish / 1 bearish technical signals agreeing
What happened after
14d ago · $2.85
Evidence: המניה במגמת עלייה ברורה ללא טווח מסחר מוגדר בטווח הזמן שנבדק.
What happened after
14d ago · $2.85
Evidence: 10 bullish / 1 bearish technical signals agreeing
What happened after
21d ago · $2.65
Evidence: attention score 62/100
What happened after
21d ago · $2.65
Evidence: המניה במגמת עלייה ברורה ללא טווח מסחר מוגדר בטווח הזמן שנבדק.
What happened after
21d ago · $2.65
Evidence: 10 bullish / 0 bearish technical signals agreeing
What happened after
22d ago · $2.71
Evidence: המניה במגמת עלייה ברורה ללא טווח מסחר מוגדר בטווח הזמן שנבדק.
What happened after
22d ago · $2.71
Evidence: 10 bullish / 0 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 28, 2026
Then
86
$2.71
Now
48
$2.63
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
No data available
Quality
No data available
Value
No data available
Momentum
33
Risk
34
Sentiment
92
Fundamental
No data available
Institutional
40
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
This stock hasn't been analyzed by StockIQAI's movement engine yet — coverage is still expanding. Check back soon.
The provided sources do not mention **AC Immune SA** directly, so no specific recent media coverage about the company can be summarized. The headlines focus on unrelated biotech firms like Verastem, Capricor, Summit Therapeutics, Ionis, Krystal Biotech, and United Therapeutics, covering topics such as stock surges, FDA approvals, and clinical trial results.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about AC Immune SA. News trend score: 92. Reason: 11 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
17
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
19
Fundamentals
—
Technical
33
Valuation
—
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.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price (3M)
+10%
Market Narrative
59
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
+9
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior for ACIU suggests a **FOMO-driven narrative**, where positive momentum, elevated volume, and extreme positive sentiment create urgency to join the rally. Euphoria is present but secondary, reflecting cautious optimism rather than reckless overconfidence. The narrative-reality gap (20 points) hints at potential disconnects—perhaps overestimating tailwinds or ignoring structural risks—but no clear bias toward panic or anchoring is evident. The key open question is whether the momentum remains self-sustaining or if sentiment will normalize as the gap widens.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 10:09 AM
What could change this?
🧠 Market Brain events driving this
📈 19D Investor Psychology
Signal classification confidence: Medium (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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — 84/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a stark divide among historical methodologies, with scores ranging from a near-universal caution (like Morgan Housel’s 0, flagging volatility that would unsettle patient investors) to a few methodologies that still see *some* speculative interest. The most bearish frameworks—Veblen’s (20) and Loeb’s (21)—warn of reckless growth chasing or outright capital-threatening risk, while the lowest-scoring models (Housel, Marks, and Nelson) emphasize late-cycle or overbought conditions that would trigger defensive exits. Meanwhile, mid-tier thinkers like Mackay (56) and Livermore (65) detect *muted* crowd behavior or indecision, suggesting a lack of clear conviction rather than outright opportunity. The fundamentalists (Graham, Fisher, Lynch) and balance-sheet purists (Bagehot, Enterprising Graham) all hit a dead end due to insufficient data, leaving no clear signal for disciplined value or growth investing. The contrast underscores a stock that’s either too murky for traditional analysis or too volatile for patient strategies—with only a handful of approaches tolerating *any* speculative curiosity.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 84
Cycle position looks favorable — closer to oversold than overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 75
No obvious signs of crowd mania
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)
🟡 51
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 50
Not enough balance-sheet/valuation data for a real Graham read
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 50
Not enough fundamentals data for a real Fisher read
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 50
Not enough growth data for a real Lynch read
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 50
Not enough balance-sheet data for a real Bagehot read
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 50
Not enough valuation data for a real Enterprising-Graham read
Key question
Is the stock statistically cheap enough to justify the extra risk?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 45
Mixed — a good business, but expectations may already be high
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 41
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 21
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 20
Pattern Veblen would flag as growth pursued for its own sake
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 30%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 18
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🔴 15
Not enough dividend/growth data for a real Smith read
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 25%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 13
Negative trend — against Livermore's core rule of trading with the trend
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
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 280 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (2 bullish · 8 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.
Medium 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.
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 11 positive, 5 neutral, 4 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Zacks · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Zacks · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Zacks · 18.9.2026
Zacks · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Zacks · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Zacks · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Zacks · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Zacks · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Zacks · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Zacks · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
StockIQ doesn't currently have enough real data to compute a reliable score for AC Immune SA (ACIU) — only 3 of 7 categories are available right now. Rather than show a misleading number, this page shows which data is missing instead.
StockIQ doesn't give buy/sell recommendations — and for ACIU specifically, there currently isn't enough real data (only 3 of 7 categories available) to state even a factual score reliably. Check back once more data is available.
ACIU's technical score is 33/100, which currently reads as bearish — 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: Price is above the 50-day average; +7.7% over the last 3 months relative to the index.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: ATR: 5.0% of price; Calmar: -0.06 (3y annualized return -4.4% / max drawdown 70.4%); Price is below the 200-day average.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for ACIU.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 2 purchases and 3 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| June Carl Howard | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 38,889 | +38,889 | — |
| June Carl Howard | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 16,568 | +16,568 | — |
| Buetler Monika | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 41,667 | +41,667 | — |
| Buetler Monika | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 17,751 | +17,751 | — |
| Zuegel Martin | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 77,778 | +77,778 | — |
| Zuegel Martin | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 33,136 | +33,136 | — |
| AGUIAR-LUCANDER RENEE | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 38,889 | +38,889 | — |
| AGUIAR-LUCANDER RENEE | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 16,568 | +16,568 | — |
| Twyman Roy Ervin | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 38,889 | +38,889 | — |
| Twyman Roy Ervin | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 16,568 | +16,568 | — |
| Zuegel Martin | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 71,408 | +33,136 | — |
| Zuegel Martin | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 77,778 | +77,778 | — |
| AGUIAR-LUCANDER RENEE | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 51,136 | +16,568 | — |
| AGUIAR-LUCANDER RENEE | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 38,889 | +38,889 | — |
| June Carl Howard | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 67,556 | +16,568 | — |
| June Carl Howard | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 38,889 | +38,889 | — |
| Buetler Monika | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 71,656 | +17,751 | — |
| Buetler Monika | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 41,667 | +41,667 | — |
| Twyman Roy Ervin | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 92,556 | +16,568 | — |
| Twyman Roy Ervin | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 38,889 | +38,889 | — |
| Pfeifer Andrea | Open Market Sale | 15.5.2026 | 10,000 | -10,000 | $2.79 |
| Pfeifer Andrea | Open Market Sale | 15.5.2026 | 3,820,288 | -10,000 | $2.79 |
| Pfeifer Andrea | Open Market Purchase | 15.4.2026 | 10,000 | -10,000 | $3.14 |
| Pfeifer Andrea | Open Market Purchase | 15.4.2026 | 3,830,288 | -10,000 | $3.14 |
| Pfeifer Andrea | Open Market Sale | 15.4.2026 | 3,830,288 | -10,000 | $3.14 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
3,296,131 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 3,551,322 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. 61.2% 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