Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
· ·
$12.13
▼ $0.79 (-6.1%)
Market data updated: 09/20 06:35 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/20/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$140.60M
Day Range
$12.12 - $12.89
52-Week Range
$1.03 - $32.10
Beta
—
Next Earnings
12.11.2026
Support
$6.61
Resistance
$13.48
-18.1% (1Y)
Strengths: 15/30 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
🟢 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): 47.7%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: -$7.49 vs. price $12.13 (-161.7%)
Fair Value
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (62/100), but fair-value analysis scores this stock as relatively expensive (38/100) — the growth story and the current price aren't fully aligned.
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
57
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
62
Quality
42
Value
38
Momentum
80
Risk
40
Sentiment
92
Fundamental
35
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 **Axe Compute Inc.** highlights its rapid growth in AI infrastructure, with key focus on securing substantial contracts and prepayments. The company has announced **$3 billion in new AI-related deals**, including a **$500 million, five-year data center lease** and **$317 million in customer prepayments**, signaling strong demand for its specialized computing solutions. Analysts note potential for significant revenue growth, particularly in Q1 2027, as the firm expands its AI-focused infrastructure.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Axe Compute Inc.. News trend score: 92. Reason: 9 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
74
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
21
Investors appear highly excited (74), but evidence of strong fundamental conviction is comparatively weak (21).
Psychology
82
Fundamentals
35
Technical
80
Valuation
38
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.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price, sentiment, and valuation keep confirming each other upward while the actual fundamentals deteriorate.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Price (3M)
+70%
Market Narrative
84
Fundamental Reality
21
Narrative Gap
+63
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s dominant *Euphoria* (43) stems from a stark disconnect between valuation (+84.9% above 200-day avg) and weak momentum (-2.1% ROC). Confirmation bias (30) amplifies this, as the narrative gap (+30) ignores deteriorating fundamentals (e.g., -1322.6pp margin collapse). FOMO (21) remains muted by subdued volume (0.45x avg) and mid-RSI (62), suggesting cautious optimism rather than frenzy. The key question: *Will traders rationalize fundamentals or exit before the gap closes?*
Updated: 09/09/2026, 01:06 AM
What could change this?
📈 3D 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
Charles Mackay — 11/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for AGPU reflects deep methodological disagreements about risk, timing, and valuation. Walter Bagehot’s near-perfect score highlights his focus on liquidity and resilience, suggesting the stock’s stability in a credit crisis would align with his principles. Meanwhile, Peter Lynch’s high score points to his growth-oriented lens, seeing untapped upside in the price-growth mismatch—an approach starkly contrasted by Philip Fisher’s low score, which dismisses the stock’s lack of his signature quality and growth traits. Risk-averse frameworks like those of Benjamin Graham, Howard Marks, and Gerald Loeb uniformly flag the stock as too volatile or overvalued, while cyclical analysts like Nelson and Veblen warn of overbought conditions or speculative excesses. Even the efficient-market camp sees little edge, reinforcing that AGPU’s appeal hinges entirely on subjective growth bets rather than structural advantages.
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)
🟢 89
Positive trend — the price action Livermore looked for
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 64
No clear edge either way
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)
🟡 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
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 35
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
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)
🔴 33
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)
🔴 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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 29
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
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 17
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🔴 16
Cycle looks stretched toward 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)
🔴 11
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
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 (10 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.
Low 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
42.0%
Operating Margin
-144404.5%
Net Margin
-186053.4%
EBITDA Margin
-144301.5%
ROE
-488.5%
ROA
-440.7%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$13.37
Cash
$10.79M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
10.02
Debt/Equity
—
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$12.13
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$7.49
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-161.7%
🔴 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% | $-9.38M | $-8.61M |
| 2 | -3.1% | $-9.09M | $-7.65M |
| 3 | -1.2% | $-8.98M | $-6.93M |
| 4 | 0.6% | $-9.03M | $-6.40M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-9.26M | $-6.02M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-9.88M
Terminal Value
$-145.98M
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-94.88M
Enterprise Value
$-130.48M
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$-130.48M
*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
$2.74
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$2.74
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 9 positive, 9 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Benzinga · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 31.8.2026
Investing.com · 31.8.2026
Barchart · 24.8.2026
GuruFocus.com · 19.8.2026
Stocktwits · 18.8.2026
Moby · 18.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 18.8.2026
GuruFocus.com · 18.8.2026
MarketBeat · 17.8.2026
Stocktwits · 17.8.2026
Axe Compute Inc. (AGPU) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 57/100, 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.
AGPU currently scores 57/100 (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, AGPU's estimated fair value is -$7.49, which is 161.7% below the current price of $12.13. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
AGPU's technical score is 80/100, 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): 47.7%; Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 61.6%; Current ratio: 10.02.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: -$7.49 vs. price $12.13 (-161.7%); SMA 50 recently crossed below SMA 200; Operating margin: -144404.5% (negative).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for AGPU.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 2 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zhu Theodore | Open Market Purchase | 8.9.2026 | 5,000 | +5,000 | $10.88 |
| Zhu Theodore | Open Market Purchase | 8.9.2026 | 3,750 | +3,750 | $11.72 |
| ST. CLAIR GREGORY SR | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 2,420 | +2,420 | — |
| HANDLEY DANIEL E | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 1,716 | +1,716 | — |
| Hawryluk Matthew | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 1,716 | +1,716 | — |
| Nuzum Charles Lee Sr | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 2,420 | +2,420 | — |
| Zhu Theodore | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 2,420 | +2,420 | — |
| Zhu Theodore | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.5.2026 | 11,250 | +11,250 | $6.61 |
| Zhu Theodore | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.5.2026 | 20,144 | +11,250 | $6.61 |
| Zhu Theodore | Grant/Award from Employer | 28.5.2026 | 3,750 | +3,750 | $6.61 |
| Zhu Theodore | Grant/Award from Employer | 28.5.2026 | 8,894 | +3,750 | $6.61 |
| Blacher Joshua | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 9,389 | +9,389 | — |
| Blacher Joshua | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 15,856 | +9,389 | — |
| Zhu Theodore | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.4.2026 | 5,144 | +5,144 | — |
| Nuzum Charles Lee Sr | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.4.2026 | 14,082 | +14,082 | — |
| Hawryluk Matthew | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.4.2026 | 6,782 | +6,782 | — |
| ST. CLAIR GREGORY SR | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.4.2026 | 9,419 | +9,419 | — |
| HANDLEY DANIEL E | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.4.2026 | 5,663 | +5,663 | — |
| HANDLEY DANIEL E | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.4.2026 | 11,040 | +5,663 | — |
| Hawryluk Matthew | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.4.2026 | 11,727 | +6,782 | — |
| ST. CLAIR GREGORY SR | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.4.2026 | 15,146 | +9,419 | — |
| Nuzum Charles Lee Sr | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.4.2026 | 20,388 | +14,082 | — |
| Zhu Theodore | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.4.2026 | 5,144 | +5,144 | — |
| Yaukey-Witter Jeremy Reese | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.4.2026 | 225,000 | +225,000 | — |
| Yaukey-Witter Jeremy Reese | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.4.2026 | 225,000 | +225,000 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
605,155 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 800,605 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
37.7% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 58.9% 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