Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$239.56
▼ $5.95 (-2.4%)
Market data updated: 09/19 01:36 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/18/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
$32.06B
Day Range
$238.51 - $246.49
52-Week Range
$197.81 - $495.55
Beta
—
Next Earnings
28.10.2026
Support
$197.81
Resistance
$380.00
ALNY 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.
-45.7% (1Y)
Strengths: 11/27 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
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Revenue growth (last year)
Revenue growth (last year): 65.2%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $88.17 vs. price $239.56 (-63.2%)
Fair Value
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (82/100), but fair-value analysis scores this stock as relatively expensive (33/100) — 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
55
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
14d ago · $266.11
Evidence: FOMO score jumped from 22 to 61 day-over-day
What happened after
🐂🐻 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
82
Quality
58
Value
33
Momentum
30
Risk
40
Sentiment
80
Fundamental
71
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 coverage highlights Alnylam's growing commercial prospects, with Oppenheimer noting Zilebesiran's potential following Baxfendy launch and a market report citing Nucresiran launch plans in the hATTR space. ChartMill credits Alnylam with strong growth, reasonable valuation, solid profitability and healthy financials, while HC Wainwright reiterates a Buy rating with a $455 price target. The company also announced webcasts of investor conference presentations in September.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc.. News trend score: 80. Reason: 7 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
26
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
43
Psychology
52
Fundamentals
71
Technical
30
Valuation
33
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.
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.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Price (3M)
-12%
Market Narrative
71
Fundamental Reality
43
Narrative Gap
+28
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
ALNY’s market behavior suggests a dominant **herding** dynamic, where traders align with peers after a modest pullback (-2.0% vs. -1.7% sector). Underlying momentum (+9.7% ROC) and euphoric valuation (+196% vs. DCF) imply residual overconfidence, while loss aversion lingers from the 3-month decline. The narrative gap (42) hints at a disconnect between optimistic expectations (85) and fundamental reality (43). The key question: will traders double down on herding or pivot as momentum stalls?
Updated: 09/08/2026, 04:04 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"report tracks Intellia and Regeneron's Nex-Z Through Phase III, Alnylam's Nucresiran Launch Plans"
"$3B market Is Racing Toward a One-Time Curative Gene-Editing Therapy"
"management will present company overviews at upcoming investor conferences"
"HC Wainwright & Co. reiterates Alnylam Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ:ALNY) with a Buy and maintains $455 price target"
📈 7D 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
Peter Lynch — 96/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jesse Livermore — 15/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Based on Peter Lynch's documented principles, the model estimates ALNY as a growth candidate because the high score reflects rapid earnings expansion not yet priced. Walter Bagehot's focus on liquidity and resilience yields a similarly high rating, emphasizing that the firm appears robust in balance‑sheet health, while Philip Fisher's quality lens also assigns a strong score for operational excellence. In contrast, valuation‑oriented and defensive frameworks such as Benjamin Graham’s and Howard Marks’ assign low scores, indicating the stock fails Graham’s safety criteria and presents a risk/valuation mix that would be a caution sign, while cycle‑aware analysts like Charles Mackay and Samuel Armstrong Nelson see signs of crowd excitement and an overbought cycle, tempering the bullish view. Mid‑range scores from Jack Schwager, Morgan Housel and the efficient‑market perspective suggest a moderate stance, with no clear edge or strong case for outperformance, illustrating the split between growth‑optimistic and risk‑averse interpretations.
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 96
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 94
Strong liquidity — would likely survive a real credit squeeze
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟢 78
Exceptional company quality by Fisher's standards
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟢 71
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)
🟢 67
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 63
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 60
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 46
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 40
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)
🟡 40
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 39
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
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
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)
🔴 15
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
Based on the last 279 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (2 bullish · 6 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.
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
81.8%
Operating Margin
13.5%
Net Margin
8.4%
EBITDA Margin
15.0%
ROE
39.8%
ROA
6.3%
ROIC
—
EPS
$2.39
Cash
$1.66B
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
2.76
Debt/Equity
—
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$239.56
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$88.17
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-63.2%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
25.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 25.0% | $581.73M | $533.70M |
| 2 | 19.4% | $694.44M | $584.50M |
| 3 | 13.8% | $789.92M | $609.97M |
| 4 | 8.1% | $854.11M | $605.07M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $875.46M | $568.99M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$465.38M
Terminal Value
$13.81B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$8.97B
Enterprise Value
$11.87B
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$11.87B
*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
$5.86
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$5.86
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 7 positive, 11 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 17.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Motley Fool · 15.9.2026
PR Newswire · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 14.9.2026
Benzinga · 11.9.2026
Insider Monkey · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 8.9.2026
MT Newswires · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 4.9.2026
ChartMill · 3.9.2026
Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (ALNY) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 55/100, 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.
ALNY currently scores 55/100 (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, ALNY's estimated fair value is $88.17, which is 63.2% below the current price of $239.56. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
ALNY's technical score is 30/100, 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: Revenue growth (last year): 65.2%; Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 206.9%; Free cash flow growth: 1192.7%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $88.17 vs. price $239.56 (-63.2%); ATR: 4.4% of price; Calmar: 0.19 (3y annualized return 11.0% / max drawdown 58.2%).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for ALNY.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 10 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PYOTT DAVID E I | Open Market Sale | 1.6.2026 | 17 | -17 | $302.65 |
| PYOTT DAVID E I | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.6.2026 | 3,830 | +3,830 | — |
| PYOTT DAVID E I | Open Market Sale | 1.6.2026 | 1,222 | -1,222 | $299.87 |
| PYOTT DAVID E I | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.6.2026 | 3,830 | -3,830 | — |
| PYOTT DAVID E I | Open Market Sale | 1.6.2026 | 1,175 | -1,175 | $298.91 |
| Cravatt Benjamin | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.6.2026 | 4,393 | +4,393 | — |
| PYOTT DAVID E I | Open Market Sale | 1.6.2026 | 921 | -921 | $297.71 |
| PYOTT DAVID E I | Open Market Sale | 1.6.2026 | 495 | -495 | $300.72 |
| PYOTT DAVID E I | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.6.2026 | 5,412 | +3,830 | — |
| PYOTT DAVID E I | Open Market Sale | 1.6.2026 | 4,491 | -921 | $297.71 |
| PYOTT DAVID E I | Open Market Sale | 1.6.2026 | 3,316 | -1,175 | $298.91 |
| PYOTT DAVID E I | Open Market Sale | 1.6.2026 | 2,094 | -1,222 | $299.87 |
| PYOTT DAVID E I | Open Market Sale | 1.6.2026 | 1,599 | -495 | $300.72 |
| PYOTT DAVID E I | Open Market Sale | 1.6.2026 | 1,582 | -17 | $302.65 |
| PYOTT DAVID E I | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.6.2026 | 0 | -3,830 | — |
| Cravatt Benjamin | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.6.2026 | 4,393 | +4,393 | — |
| KELLOGG PETER N | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 671 | +671 | — |
| Ausiello Dennis A | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 1,441 | +1,441 | — |
| PYOTT DAVID E I | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 1,441 | +1,441 | — |
| HAMBURG MARGARET A | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 671 | +671 | — |
| Reitan Colleen F | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 671 | +671 | — |
| Arbuckle Stuart A | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 671 | +671 | — |
| Ausiello Dennis A | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 671 | +671 | — |
| HAMBURG MARGARET A | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 1,441 | +1,441 | — |
| Sigal Charles Elliott | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 1,441 | +1,441 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
6,340,087 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 4,803,194 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
65.3% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 75.5% 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