Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
· ·
$93.49
▲ $2.94 (+3.2%)
Market data updated: 09/20 05:53 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$3.05B
Day Range
$87.15 - $93.90
52-Week Range
$18.70 - $147.40
Beta
—
Next Earnings
01.10.2026
Support
$63.81
Resistance
$147.40
+205.8% (1Y)
Strengths: 10/29 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
🟢 Bullish
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Free cash flow growth
Free cash flow growth: 56.6%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: -$2.32 vs. price $93.49 (-102.5%)
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
52
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
today · $93.49
Evidence: Narrative Gap moved from 18 to 54 day-over-day
What happened after
Still awaiting outcome
today · $93.49
Evidence: Euphoria score crossed 55 (now 71)
What happened after
Still awaiting outcome
today · $93.49
Evidence: FOMO score jumped from 16 to 46 day-over-day
What happened after
Still awaiting outcome
🐂🐻 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
42
Value
38
Momentum
69
Risk
40
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
32
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 **Aehr Test Systems** has centered on its growing AI testing business, with a focus on securing major orders and expanding recurring revenue streams. The company’s stock surged 13% on strong institutional investor interest, while analysts explored its potential for long-term growth in AI processor testing. Though not directly mentioned, broader AI sector trends—including smaller AI-focused stocks—highlight its niche within emerging tech. No major financial or operational crises were reported.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Aehr Test Systems. News trend score: 100. Reason: 13 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 2 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
61
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
34
Psychology
71
Fundamentals
32
Technical
69
Valuation
38
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
Price, sentiment, and valuation keep confirming each other upward while the actual fundamentals deteriorate.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
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.
Price (3M)
-19%
Market Narrative
88
Fundamental Reality
34
Narrative Gap
+54
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s dominant **Euphoria** (50) stems from extreme positive sentiment (98/100) and a 43.9% outperformance vs. the 200-day average, despite weak momentum (-14.3% ROC). This suggests investors are prioritizing narrative-driven optimism over technical signals, a classic confirmation bias trap. The **narrative gap (+18)** and deteriorating fundamentals (revenue/margins) further imply selective attention to bullish narratives. The key question: *Will traders double down on euphoria despite diverging fundamentals, or will confirmation bias fade as reality aligns?*
Updated: 09/09/2026, 01:03 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Aehr's AI testing business gains momentum with major orders, new customer opportunities and a path toward recurring revenues."
"Aehr Test Systems (NASDAQ:AEHR) saw its share price climb by 13.10 percent... as investors began positioning their portfolios ahead of business updates."
🧠 Market Brain events driving this
📈 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
Walter Bagehot — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Peter Lynch — 8/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Based on Walter Bagehot’s documented emphasis on liquidity, the model estimates a perfect score, highlighting that the company could survive a credit squeeze, while most other frameworks assign modest to low scores. Samuel Nelson, Jesse Livermore, and the efficient‑market view see the stock as middle‑cycle or lacking a clear edge, resulting in scores around the 45‑50 range. Value‑oriented investors such as Graham, Marks, and Fisher give substantially lower marks because the stock fails their safety, valuation, and quality criteria. In contrast, critics of hype like Mackay, Veblen, and Lynch assign the lowest scores, flagging crowd delusion, growth for its own sake, and failure to meet growth‑at‑reasonable‑price standards.
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 64
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 47
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 45
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 44
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?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 45%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 43
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 35%
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 37
Cycle looks stretched toward overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 36
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
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 33
Looks late-cycle — the position Marks would treat with extra caution
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)
🔴 21
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
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 18
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)
🔴 17
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 12
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)
🔴 8
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
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 an uptrend (7 bullish · 3 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 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.
Gross Margin
35.3%
Operating Margin
-28.3%
Net Margin
-14.3%
EBITDA Margin
-22.7%
ROE
-3.2%
ROA
-2.9%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$0.23
Cash
$116.36M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
10.33
Debt/Equity
—
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$93.49
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$2.32
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-102.5%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
-5.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | -5.0% | $-5.11M | $-4.69M |
| 2 | -3.1% | $-4.95M | $-4.16M |
| 3 | -1.2% | $-4.89M | $-3.77M |
| 4 | 0.6% | $-4.92M | $-3.48M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-5.04M | $-3.28M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-5.38M
Terminal Value
$-79.46M
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-51.65M
Enterprise Value
$-71.03M
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$-71.03M
*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
$7.16
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$6.50
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 13 positive, 5 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
MT Newswires · 10.9.2026
MT Newswires · 10.9.2026
Benzinga · 10.9.2026
Benzinga · 10.9.2026
Benzinga · 9.9.2026
Benzinga · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 7.9.2026
Zacks · 7.9.2026
Yahoo · 7.9.2026
Zacks · 7.9.2026
Yahoo · 6.9.2026
Simply Wall St. · 6.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 5.9.2026
Insider Monkey · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
Benzinga · 4.9.2026
Aehr Test Systems (AEHR) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 52/100, 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.
AEHR currently scores 52/100 (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, AEHR's estimated fair value is -$2.32, which is 102.5% below the current price of $93.49. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
AEHR's technical score is 69/100, 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: Free cash flow growth: 56.6%; Current ratio: 10.33; Price is above the 50-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: -$2.32 vs. price $93.49 (-102.5%); Operating margin: -28.3% (negative); Net margin: -14.3% (negative).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for AEHR.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 18 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WIMMERS DIDIER | Tax Withholding in Shares | 3.9.2026 | 317 | -317 | $76.27 |
| Siu Chris | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.9.2026 | 496 | -496 | $76.59 |
| ROGERS VERNON | Open Market Sale | 17.8.2026 | 3,994 | -3,994 | $143.77 |
| ROGERS VERNON | Open Market Sale | 14.8.2026 | 1,000 | -1,000 | $139.00 |
| ENGINEER ADIL | Gift | 14.8.2026 | 500 | -500 | — |
| SLAYEN HOWARD T | Open Market Sale | 14.8.2026 | 5,700 | -5,700 | $133.03 |
| ROGERS VERNON | Open Market Sale | 14.8.2026 | 1,000 | -1,000 | $134.00 |
| POSEDEL RHEA J | Open Market Sale | 14.8.2026 | 5,973 | -5,973 | $140.00 |
| SALAMONE ALBERTO | Open Market Sale | 13.8.2026 | 5,472 | -5,472 | $127.50 |
| SALAMONE ALBERTO | Open Market Sale | 13.8.2026 | 4,200 | -4,200 | $128.00 |
| POSEDEL RHEA J | Open Market Sale | 12.8.2026 | 8,413 | -8,413 | $130.00 |
| OLIPHANT LAURA | Open Market Sale | 12.8.2026 | 1,717 | -1,717 | $133.00 |
| ENGINEER ADIL | Open Market Sale | 12.8.2026 | 7,500 | -7,500 | $130.95 |
| ENGINEER ADIL | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 12.8.2026 | 7,500 | -7,500 | — |
| ENGINEER ADIL | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 12.8.2026 | 15,000 | +15,000 | $9.45 |
| Erickson Gayn | Open Market Sale | 12.8.2026 | 1,548 | -1,548 | $132.27 |
| ENGINEER ADIL | Open Market Sale | 12.8.2026 | 7,500 | -7,500 | $131.10 |
| Erickson Gayn | Open Market Sale | 12.8.2026 | 38,452 | -38,452 | $130.79 |
| SCOTT GEOFFREY GATES | Open Market Sale | 12.8.2026 | 20,000 | -20,000 | $131.51 |
| ENGINEER ADIL | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 12.8.2026 | 7,500 | -7,500 | — |
| SCOTT GEOFFREY GATES | Gift | 12.8.2026 | 6,731 | -6,731 | — |
| SPORCK ALISTAIR N | Open Market Sale | 10.8.2026 | 1,000 | -1,000 | $108.49 |
| SPORCK ALISTAIR N | Open Market Sale | 4.8.2026 | 1,301 | -1,301 | $101.10 |
| SPORCK ALISTAIR N | Open Market Sale | 4.8.2026 | 699 | -699 | $100.70 |
| SLAYEN HOWARD T | Open Market Sale | 4.8.2026 | 20,000 | -20,000 | $108.30 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
4,349,980 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 4,292,682 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
51.2% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 57.8% 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