Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Technology · ·
$103.75
▼ $1.29 (-1.2%)
Market data updated: 09/17 10:45 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/16/2026
News analyzed: 09/17/2026
Market Cap
$3.20B
Day Range
$102.66 - $107.63
52-Week Range
$73.60 - $193.78
Beta
—
Next Earnings
02.11.2026
ACLS is a stock from the Technology sector — Software, hardware, chip, and computing-services companies — revenue tied to the pace of innovation and upgrade cycles.
+15.5% (1Y)
Strengths: 4/28 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
🔴 Bearish
Technical Trend
🔴 Bearish
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
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
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $48.49 vs. price $103.75 (-53.3%)
Fair Value
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
40
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
26
Quality
58
Value
38
Momentum
13
Risk
40
Sentiment
56
Fundamental
68
Institutional
0
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.
Recent media coverage of Axcelis Technologies has focused on its strong market performance and investor interest, with a notable emphasis on its **outpacing the market by 19.5% annually over five years**, drawing attention from traders and analysts. The company’s stock has gained traction amid broader semiconductor sector momentum, particularly as AI-driven demand and advanced packaging trends support its growth trajectory. Additionally, Axcelis has participated in investor conferences, reinforcing its visibility among financial markets. While no direct company-specific news beyond financial performance and market speculation was highlighted, its stock remains a key topic for potential portfolio inclusion.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Axcelis Technologies, Inc.. News trend score: 56. Reason: 5 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
24
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
40
Psychology
79
Fundamentals
68
Technical
13
Valuation
38
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
Price (3M)
-45%
Market Narrative
47
Fundamental Reality
40
Narrative Gap
+7
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s dominant overconfidence (score 45) suggests traders are prioritizing valuation extremes (+145% DCF) over diverging momentum and fundamentals. The narrative-reality gap (+16) and confirmation bias (score 21) imply selective attention to positive narratives despite deteriorating metrics. Loss aversion (score 38) may also linger, given the recent drawdown, but elevated volume and neutral RSI suggest cautious, not frantic, selling. The key question: *Will traders double down on overvaluation despite lagging fundamentals, or will loss aversion trigger corrective volume?*
Updated: 09/08/2026, 07:58 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Axcelis Technologies (NASDAQ:ACLS) has outperformed the market over the past 5 years by 8.39% on an annualized basis producing an average annual return of 19.5%."
"AI-driven TPS demand surges, lifting backlog and extending order visibility into fiscal 2027."
"Investors need to pay close attention to ACLS stock based on the movements in the options market lately."
📈 9D 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
Walter Bagehot — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Based on the documented principles of each methodology, the model estimates that liquidity‑focused analysts like Walter Bagehot and Samuel Armstrong Nelson assign very high scores, reflecting strong balance‑sheet resilience and a favorable cycle position, while Howard Marks’ market‑cycle lens also sees an early‑to‑mid‑cycle stance but with a more moderate rating. In contrast, risk‑averse frameworks such as Gerald M. Loeb, Howard Marks’ risk/valuation filter, and the efficient‑market view of Malkiel & Bogle assign low scores, flagging capital‑preservation concerns, valuation cautions, and a preference for index exposure. Growth‑oriented criteria from Philip Fisher, Peter Lynch, and Thorstein Veblen yield modest to low scores, indicating the stock lacks the quality or growth‑at‑reasonable‑price signatures those investors require. Overall, the divergence stems from whether the methodology emphasizes liquidity and cycle timing versus valuation safety, growth quality, or market efficiency, leading to a split between optimistic and cautious assessments.
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 100
Strong liquidity — would likely survive a real credit squeeze
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 98
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 95
Looks early-to-mid cycle, not overextended
Key question
Where are we in the cycle right now — near a hot extreme, or a cold one?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 84
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 61
No clear edge either way
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)
🟡 50
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 39
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 31
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🔴 30
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 28
Weak case — Malkiel/Bogle would say a low-cost index is the simpler bet
Key question
Do I actually have an edge here, or do I just think I do?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 28
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 20
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)
🔴 18
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 14
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?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 278 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (0 bullish · 10 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 downtrend 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
44.9%
Operating Margin
14.2%
Net Margin
14.3%
EBITDA Margin
16.3%
ROE
11.6%
ROA
8.8%
ROIC
—
EPS
$3.81
Cash
$145.45M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
4.77
Debt/Equity
—
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$103.75
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$48.49
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-53.3%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
-1.5%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | -1.5% | $105.35M | $96.65M |
| 2 | -0.5% | $104.79M | $88.20M |
| 3 | 0.5% | $105.28M | $81.30M |
| 4 | 1.5% | $106.85M | $75.70M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $109.52M | $71.18M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$107.01M
Terminal Value
$1.73B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$1.12B
Enterprise Value
$1.54B
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$1.54B
*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
$32.67
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$32.67
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 5 positive, 11 neutral, 4 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
Zacks · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
MT Newswires · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
PR Newswire · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
Investment Monitor · 4.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 4.9.2026
Benzinga · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
Simply Wall St. · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
Simply Wall St. · 3.9.2026
Axcelis Technologies, Inc. (ACLS) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 40/100, rated "Weak". The score is a weighted average across up to 7 categories (technical, fundamental, growth, fair value, news, quality, risk), based on real data only.
ACLS currently scores 40/100 (Weak) 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, ACLS's estimated fair value is $48.49, which is 53.3% below the current price of $103.75. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
ACLS's technical score is 13/100, 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: Operating margin is stable or improving over time; Current ratio: 4.77; Gross margin: 44.9% — strong.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $48.49 vs. price $103.75 (-53.3%); ATR: 6.1% of price; Calmar: -0.20 (3y annualized return -15.0% / max drawdown 74.8%).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for ACLS.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 17 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ryzhik David | Tax Withholding in Shares | 15.7.2026 | 127 | -127 | $145.01 |
| Ryzhik David | Tax Withholding in Shares | 15.7.2026 | 94 | -94 | $145.01 |
| Ryzhik David | Tax Withholding in Shares | 15.7.2026 | 9,884 | -127 | $145.01 |
| Ryzhik David | Tax Withholding in Shares | 15.7.2026 | 9,790 | -94 | $145.01 |
| Ryzhik David | Tax Withholding in Shares | 16.6.2026 | 76 | -76 | $176.85 |
| Ryzhik David | Tax Withholding in Shares | 16.6.2026 | 9,955 | -76 | $176.85 |
| Blumenstock Gerald M | Tax Withholding in Shares | 15.6.2026 | 506 | -506 | $191.60 |
| Blumenstock Gerald M | Tax Withholding in Shares | 15.6.2026 | 19,987 | -506 | $191.60 |
| Sayiner Necip | Open Market Sale | 3.6.2026 | 1,586 | -1,586 | $157.44 |
| Sayiner Necip | Open Market Sale | 3.6.2026 | 7,112 | -1,586 | $157.44 |
| Mahoney Robert John | Open Market Sale | 2.6.2026 | 1,155 | -1,155 | $155.24 |
| Mahoney Robert John | Open Market Sale | 2.6.2026 | 14,410 | -1,155 | $155.24 |
| Sutton Todd | Open Market Sale | 27.5.2026 | 2,000 | -2,000 | $159.99 |
| Sutton Todd | Open Market Sale | 27.5.2026 | 6,360 | -2,000 | $159.99 |
| St Dennis Thomas | Open Market Sale | 22.5.2026 | 900 | -900 | $155.37 |
| Evans Eileen | Open Market Sale | 22.5.2026 | 926 | -926 | $155.51 |
| Evans Eileen | Open Market Sale | 22.5.2026 | 31,295 | -926 | $155.51 |
| St Dennis Thomas | Open Market Sale | 22.5.2026 | 17,695 | -900 | $155.37 |
| Blumenstock Gerald M | Open Market Sale | 21.5.2026 | 1,161 | -1,161 | $152.70 |
| Blumenstock Gerald M | Open Market Sale | 21.5.2026 | 20,493 | -1,161 | $152.70 |
| Tatnall Christopher | Open Market Sale | 20.5.2026 | 1,166 | -1,166 | $149.75 |
| Tatnall Christopher | Open Market Sale | 20.5.2026 | 27,627 | -1,166 | $149.75 |
| KURTZWEIL JOHN T | Open Market Sale | 19.5.2026 | 3,500 | -3,500 | $138.79 |
| GRAVES GREGORY B | Open Market Sale | 19.5.2026 | 600 | -600 | $142.51 |
| GRAVES GREGORY B | Open Market Sale | 19.5.2026 | 2,625 | -2,625 | $141.41 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
1,625,367 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 1,612,811 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
60.0% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 48.1% 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