Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$0.47
▼ $0.00 (-1.1%)
Market data updated: 09/20 09:43 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/20/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$5.94M
Day Range
$0.47 - $0.50
52-Week Range
⚠️ Data anomaly
Beta
—
Next Earnings
—
Support
$0.40
Resistance
$0.68
AIDX 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.
-98.0% (1Y)
Strengths: 5/24 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
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Earnings per share (EPS) growth
Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 34.5%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
Operating margin
Operating margin: -162.9% (negative)
Fundamental
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
NO RELIABLE ECHO FOUND
Only 0 historical analog(s) found after removing overlapping dates — too few for a statistically meaningful comparison.
Historical matches considered: 0
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
45
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
71
Quality
58
Value
50
Momentum
14
Risk
34
Sentiment
86
Fundamental
35
Institutional
No data available
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
Not enough comparably-scored stocks yet to show similar matches.
This stock hasn't been analyzed by StockIQAI's movement engine yet — coverage is still expanding. Check back soon.
Recent media coverage of **20/20 Biolabs, Inc.** has centered on its AI-driven **OneTest™ multi-cancer early detection platform**, highlighting record revenue growth in its cancer testing segment and strategic commercial expansion. The company has repeatedly announced investor webinars to discuss financial performance, commercial adoption progress, and broader market opportunities, including its **East Asia roll-out strategy** after business development tours. Analyst attention also reflects broader industry trends in AI-powered healthcare innovation amid cost-efficiency pressures.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about 20/20 Biolabs, Inc.. News trend score: 86. Reason: 8 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
35
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
49
Psychology
88
Fundamentals
35
Technical
14
Valuation
50
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own 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, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
Price (3M)
-29%
Market Narrative
47
Fundamental Reality
49
Narrative Gap
-2
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant **Loss Aversion** (91) reflects a market deeply anchored to recent declines (-33.6% in 3 months), with subdued volume (0.78x) signaling reluctance to engage. While **Overconfidence** (32) and **FOMO** (37) exist, they’re muted by the stock’s prolonged underperformance. The **narrative gap** (25) suggests traders may be overestimating recovery potential. The key question: Will traders break their loss-avoidance pattern, or will the gap widen further?
Updated: 09/08/2026, 10:42 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"‘Strongest Quarterly Performance Since Commercial Launch of Multi-Cancer Early Detection Testing, OneTest™’"
"'Path to Broader Commercial Adoption' and 'East Asia Roll-Up Strategy'"
"'Discuss OneTest™ Revenue and Expanding Commercial Opportunity'"
"'Meets with Strategic Counterparties in Taipei, Tokyo, and Seoul' and 'Mulls Merger, Acquisition, Licensing, JV'"
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — 96/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The methodologies here split sharply between bullish, cautious, and outright negative views on AIDX. Peter Lynch and Thorstein Veblen’s high scores (84 and 80) suggest they’d see strong growth potential—Lynch’s verdict implies the stock’s price hasn’t yet reflected its underlying momentum, while Veblen’s alignment with real value creation reinforces a long-term conviction. Meanwhile, mid-tier scores (50–60) from investors like Smith, Fisher, and Nelson indicate a lukewarm but not dismissive stance—Smith calls it ‘reasonable,’ Fisher notes solid but unexceptional quality, and Nelson sees it as mid-cycle with no clear edge. At the other extreme, Graham, Bagehot, and Loeb’s near-zero or negative scores reflect deep skepticism: Graham lacks sufficient data, Bagehot flags liquidity risks, and Loeb warns of capital-threatening volatility. The contrast underscores a divide between those who prioritize growth and value creation (top tier) and those who stress risk, liquidity, or structural flaws (bottom tier).
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 96
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 84
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟢 80
Growth appears aligned with real value creation
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 71
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)
🟢 66
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 60
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)
🟡 58
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 53
Solid, but not the exceptional quality Fisher looked for
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 26
Risk/valuation combination Marks would flag as a caution sign
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 45%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 25
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 20
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 17
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 2
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 0
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: 15%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 0
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: 20%
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 147 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (0 bullish · 10 bearish · 0 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
29.6%
Operating Margin
-162.9%
Net Margin
-182.8%
EBITDA Margin
-159.8%
ROE
19447.7%
ROA
-90.4%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$0.76
Cash
$1.03M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
0.60
Debt/Equity
—
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
-$0.00
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$0.04
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 8 positive, 10 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 6.9.2026
Yahoo · 5.9.2026
Benzinga · 31.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 28.8.2026
Yahoo · 28.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 26.8.2026
Yahoo · 26.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 17.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 30.7.2026
GlobeNewswire · 27.7.2026
Benzinga · 27.7.2026
GlobeNewswire · 23.7.2026
Benzinga · 23.7.2026
Benzinga · 22.7.2026
GlobeNewswire · 9.7.2026
GlobeNewswire · 22.6.2026
GlobeNewswire · 27.5.2026
GlobeNewswire · 22.5.2026
GlobeNewswire · 20.5.2026
ACCESS Newswire · 20.5.2026
20/20 Biolabs, Inc. (AIDX) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 45/100, 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.
AIDX currently scores 45/100 (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.
AIDX's technical score is 14/100, 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: Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 34.5%; Net income growth: 32.7%; Operating margin is stable or improving over time.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Operating margin: -162.9% (negative); Net margin: -182.8% (negative); ATR: 11.1% of price.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for AIDX.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 15 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zhou Jiming | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.4.2026 | 150,000 | +150,000 | — |
| Bergman Alan B. | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.4.2026 | 100,000 | +100,000 | — |
| Zhou Jiming | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.4.2026 | 150,000 | +150,000 | — |
| Bergman Alan B. | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.4.2026 | 100,000 | +100,000 | — |
| Cohen Jonathan M | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.3.2026 | 352,936 | +352,936 | — |
| Compton John G. | Conversion of Derivative Security | 19.2.2026 | 7,669 | -7,669 | — |
| Ross Michael A. | Conversion of Derivative Security | 19.2.2026 | 31 | +31 | — |
| Ross Michael A. | Conversion of Derivative Security | 19.2.2026 | 31 | -31 | — |
| COHEN RICHARD M | Conversion of Derivative Security | 19.2.2026 | 7,700 | -7,700 | — |
| Compton John G. | Conversion of Derivative Security | 19.2.2026 | 7,669 | +7,669 | — |
| Rollins John Woodson | Conversion of Derivative Security | 19.2.2026 | 6,135 | -6,135 | — |
| Rollins John Woodson | Conversion of Derivative Security | 19.2.2026 | 13,029 | +13,029 | — |
| Rollins John Woodson | Conversion of Derivative Security | 19.2.2026 | 6,135 | +6,135 | — |
| COHEN RICHARD M | Conversion of Derivative Security | 19.2.2026 | 7,700 | +7,700 | — |
| Rollins John Woodson | Conversion of Derivative Security | 19.2.2026 | 13,029 | -13,029 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
94,280 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 153,293 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
17.3% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 34.9% 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