Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$2.62
▲ $0.04 (+1.6%)
Market data updated: 09/16 02:46 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/16/2026
News analyzed: 09/16/2026
Market Cap
$7.55M
Day Range
$2.52 - $2.62
52-Week Range
$1.95 - $12.03
Beta
—
Next Earnings
—
ACON 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.
-66.3% (1Y)
Strengths: 11/29 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
🟡 Mixed
Insiders
🟢 Bullish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Revenue growth (last year)
Revenue growth (last year): 65.6%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
Operating margin
Operating margin: -9312.5% (negative)
Fundamental
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
NO RELIABLE ECHO FOUND
Only 1 historical analog(s) found after removing overlapping dates — too few for a statistically meaningful comparison.
Historical matches considered: 1
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
48
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
54
Quality
42
Value
55
Momentum
60
Risk
40
Sentiment
50
Fundamental
27
Institutional
100
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 **Aclarion, Inc.** has focused on its **Nociscan® MR Spectroscopy (MRS) technology**, particularly its expansion into new clinical sites—including the University of Arizona College of Medicine in Phoenix and Goodman Campbell Brain & Spine in Indiana—as well as Texas Spine Care Center. The company also secured **patent allowances** for innovations improving MRS accuracy and efficiency, while its Q2 2026 financial results showed a loss and missed revenue expectations. Additionally, Aclarion highlighted real-world clinical applications and presented at industry events.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Aclarion, Inc.. News trend score: 50. Reason: The mix of positive and negative articles is balanced — 3 vs. 3 out of the last 11 articles.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
14
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
52
Psychology
64
Fundamentals
27
Technical
60
Valuation
55
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
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.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price (3M)
-16%
Market Narrative
49
Fundamental Reality
52
Narrative Gap
-3
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
ACON’s psychology is overwhelmingly shaped by **loss aversion**, reflecting a 34.2% three-month decline and subdued trading activity. The muted volume (0.66x average) and lack of euphoric or herding behavior suggest investors are cautious, prioritizing risk mitigation over speculative gains. The narrative-reality gap (-19) hints at a disconnect where optimism may not align with market performance. The key question: *Will the extreme loss aversion persist, or will a catalyst (e.g., earnings, sector shift) rebalance sentiment?*
Updated: 09/08/2026, 02:03 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Aclarion Announces Nociscan® Now Available at Goodman Campbell Brain & Spine at Ascension St. Vincent, First Site in Indiana to Offer the Technology"
"Aclarion Receives Notice of Allowance for Patent Advancing Accuracy and Adoption of Nociscan's MR Spectroscopy (MRS) Scan Process"
"Aclarion Announces Addition of University of Arizona College of Medicine – Phoenix as CLARITY Trial Site"
"Aclarion Announces Presentation of Two Abstracts Highlighting Nociscan’s Growing Role in Real-World Clinical Practice"
📈 5D 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
Benjamin Graham — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock splits the historical methodologies into two starkly opposing camps: the value and cycle-aware investors see it as a compelling opportunity, while the contrarian, quality-focused, and trend-following strategists dismiss it outright. Benjamin Graham—both in his defensive and enterprising forms—alongside Walter Bagehot and Charles Mackay, all score it maximally, praising its statistical discounts, liquidity, and lack of speculative mania, framing it as a textbook deep-value or defensive play. Meanwhile, Howard Marks (in his cycle-focused mode) and Peter Lynch also rate it highly, suggesting it aligns with early-to-mid-cycle dynamics or undervalued growth potential. However, the dissenters—like Jesse Livermore, Morgan Housel, and Philip Fisher—reject it entirely, with Livermore flagging a negative trend, Housel warning of volatility-induced panic selling, and Fisher dismissing its lack of quality/growth traits. Even Gerald Loeb and Jack Schwager, who prioritize risk control and disciplined setups, score it poorly, signaling it doesn’t meet their rigorous standards for capital preservation or trade execution.
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟢 100
Attractive to a Defensive Graham Investor
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 35%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟢 100
Deep statistical discount — a real Enterprising Investor candidate
Key question
Is the stock statistically cheap enough to justify the extra risk?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 45%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 89
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 81
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 77
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 72
Risk appears reasonably priced — no obvious cycle-timing red flag
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)
🟡 50
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
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)
🔴 33
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 31
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 30
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 27
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 23
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🔴 21
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?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 274 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟡 Indicators are mixed — no clear bias (6 bullish · 4 bearish · 2 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.
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.
Gross Margin
9.0%
Operating Margin
-9312.5%
Net Margin
-9551.9%
EBITDA Margin
-9012.3%
ROE
-56.4%
ROA
-52.9%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$13.61
Cash
$12.02M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
14.81
Debt/Equity
—
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$2.62
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$292.68
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
⚠️ Extreme
Model output is extreme — likely a data/model limitation for this stock, not a reliable fair-value read.
Year 1 Growth Rate
17.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 17.0% | $-8.41M | $-7.71M |
| 2 | 13.4% | $-9.53M | $-8.02M |
| 3 | 9.8% | $-10.46M | $-8.08M |
| 4 | 6.1% | $-11.10M | $-7.87M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-11.38M | $-7.40M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-7.19M
Terminal Value
$-179.46M
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-116.64M
Enterprise Value
$-155.72M
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$-155.72M
*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
$24.12
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$21.77
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 3 positive, 5 neutral, 3 negative out of the last 11 articles.
GlobeNewswire · 20.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 12.8.2026
Benzinga · 12.8.2026
Zacks · 6.8.2026
Zacks · 6.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 4.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 29.7.2026
GlobeNewswire · 21.7.2026
GlobeNewswire · 7.7.2026
GlobeNewswire · 10.6.2026
MT Newswires · 9.6.2026
Aclarion, Inc. (ACON) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 48/100, 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.
ACON currently scores 48/100 (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.
ACON's technical score is 60/100, 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: Revenue growth (last year): 65.6%; Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 99.8%; Current ratio: 14.81.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Operating margin: -9312.5% (negative); Net margin: -9551.9% (negative); Operating margin is eroding over time.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for ACON.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 7 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Williams Amanda M | Open Market Purchase | 17.8.2026 | 5,857 | +5,857 | $2.73 |
| Gould Gregory A | Open Market Purchase | 14.8.2026 | 10,000 | +10,000 | $2.45 |
| Ness Brent | Open Market Purchase | 13.8.2026 | 5,234 | +5,234 | $2.31 |
| Neal David K | Open Market Purchase | 13.8.2026 | 7,500 | +7,500 | $2.40 |
| Wesemann William | Open Market Purchase | 13.8.2026 | 2,150 | +2,150 | $2.34 |
| Bond Ryan | Open Market Purchase | 13.8.2026 | 21,122 | +21,122 | $2.37 |
| Ness Brent | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 100,000 | +100,000 | — |
| Deitsch Stephen | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 20,000 | +20,000 | — |
| Bond Ryan | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 55,000 | +55,000 | — |
| Wesemann William | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 20,000 | +20,000 | — |
| Gould Gregory A | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 50,000 | +50,000 | — |
| Breidbart Scott | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 20,000 | +20,000 | — |
| Thramann Jeffrey John | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 100,000 | +100,000 | — |
| Neal David K | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 20,000 | +20,000 | — |
| Sequira Amanda Mae | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 20,000 | +20,000 | — |
| Gould Gregory A | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 50,000 | +50,000 | — |
| Wesemann William | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 21,563 | +20,000 | — |
| Deitsch Stephen | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 20,000 | +20,000 | — |
| Thramann Jeffrey John | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 100,000 | +100,000 | — |
| Neal David K | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 22,502 | +20,000 | — |
| Ness Brent | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 106,300 | +100,000 | — |
| Breidbart Scott | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 25,664 | +20,000 | — |
| Sequira Amanda Mae | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 20,000 | +20,000 | — |
| Bond Ryan | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 55,000 | +55,000 | — |
| Breidbart Scott | Open Market Purchase | 12.5.2026 | 5,664 | +5,664 | $3.18 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
24,767 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 32,252 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
65.9% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 68.0% 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