Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Discretionary · ·
$135.76
▼ $2.84 (-2.0%)
Market data updated: 09/20 07:06 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/20/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$5.76B
Day Range
$133.91 - $138.20
52-Week Range
$65.45 - $155.22
Beta
—
Next Earnings
23.11.2026
Support
$88.59
Resistance
$155.22
ANF is a stock from the Consumer Cyclical sector — Retail, automotive, and leisure — demand rises and falls with economic sentiment and consumers' disposable income.
+51.0% (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
🟡 Mixed
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $154.04 vs. price $135.76 (+13.5%)
Fair Value
Biggest negative driver
Daily volatility (ATR)
ATR: 4.8% of price
Risk
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
55/100
Similarity
7
Historical Matches
66/100
Analog Quality
+4.7%
Median 40D Outcome
19/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
57%
+17.1% … +20.2%
🟡 Base
0%
— … —
🔴 Bearish
43%
-15.8% … -5.9%
Typical timeframe (based on real historical rates clearing a 60% bar): 10 trading days.
📌 Bottom line: Out of 7 similar historical cases for this stock, 57% (95% CI 25%–84%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of +14.0%.
Historical outcome rate is not a probability — it's what happened in this specific historical sample, with a 95% confidence range.
| Horizon | Positive rate (95% CI) | Median | 25th–75th pct | Baseline median |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5D | 57% (25%–84%) | +5.8% | -2.7% … +9.6% | +1.1% |
| 10D | 71% (36%–92%) | +3.2% | -3.3% … +5.7% | +3.5% |
| 20D | 57% (25%–84%) | +14.0% | -5.9% … +18.4% | +11.0% |
| 40D | 57% (25%–84%) | +4.7% | -4.6% … +26.8% | +19.2% |
| 60D | 71% (36%–92%) | +20.9% | +1.2% … +63.8% | +14.2% |
Sample size: 7 analogs, each at least 10 trading days apart (no double-counted overlapping events).
What happened after each historical match (20-day return)
| Date | Similarity | Regime | 20D outcome | 60D outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-04-16 | 55/100 | Consolidation | -22.1% | -0.0% |
| 2026-06-23 | 52/100 | ✓ High Volatility | +14.0% | +64.6% |
| 2026-04-30 | 47/100 | Downtrend | -9.5% | +20.9% |
| 2026-03-30 | 45/100 | Downtrend | -2.2% | +2.5% |
| 2026-03-11 | 43/100 | Downtrend | +18.6% | -13.7% |
| 2026-06-05 | 43/100 | Downtrend | +18.2% | +86.7% |
| 2026-05-14 | 38/100 | Downtrend | +25.2% | +63.1% |
Every accepted match is compared to today across 6 domains (price structure, momentum, technical, volatility, volume, relative strength) using z-scored feature distances — no single indicator dominates. Matches within 10 trading days of each other count as one event, not independent evidence. Outcome rates use a Wilson confidence interval (never a raw percentage alone), the mean return is winsorized against extreme outliers, and "Analog Quality" separately captures sample size, data completeness, and regime match — distinct from raw similarity. Relative strength is measured against SPY and against XLY (this stock's sector).
Cross-stock analogs — real other companies, not this stock's own history.
| Symbol | Matched date | Similarity | 20D outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| OSPN | 2026-06-17 | 51/100 | +12.7% |
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.
Abercrombie & Fitch (ANF) presents a mixed but cautiously optimistic profile, with its **investor score of 64** reflecting a balanced mix of strengths and vulnerabilities. The stock demonstrates **technical resilience**, sitting above both its 50-day and 200-day moving averages while exhibiting positive momentum via a bullish MACD histogram. However, the RSI at 71.5 and %K at 90.9 signal potential overbought conditions, which could indicate near-term volatility or a pullback. Fundamentally, ANF’s **strong ROE (36.1%) and ROA (14.3%)** highlight efficient capital utilization, though its **reasonable but unremarkable margins (13.3% operating, 9.6% net)** suggest limited pricing power. Growth metrics are the weakest, with **negative EPS (-2.2%) and free cash flow (-28.3%) declines**, alongside modest revenue growth (6.4%), raising concerns about long-term sustainability. Valuation appears slightly favorable, with the stock trading just **2.9% below its estimated fair value ($154.04)**, though the **NAV per share ($28.96) remains significantly lower than the current price**, hinting at potential undervaluation in absolute terms. News sentiment is overwhelmingly positive, with recent guidance upgrades and comparative analyses positioning ANF as a compelling retail value play. However, **quality is modest**, relying solely on stable operating margins, while **risk factors**—including a **high ATR (4.9%) and extreme drawdown history (Calmar ratio 0.60)**—underscore the stock’s volatility and potential for sharp corrections. The interplay of these factors results in a **moderate rating**, where technical and news-driven optimism are tempered by growth stagnation and elevated risk profiles.
The stock price is firmly above both the 50-day and 200-day moving averages, supported by a positive MACD histogram indicating rising momentum. However, the RSI (71.5) and %K (90.9) suggest the stock is approaching overbought territory, signaling potential short-term overvaluation or a pullback.
Technical strength provides near-term support, but overbought conditions may limit upside potential until momentum resets.
ANF exhibits strong profitability metrics, with an ROE of 36.1% and ROA of 14.3%, but its operating (13.3%) and net margins (9.6%) are modest and stable rather than exceptional. The current ratio of 1.49 indicates adequate liquidity but no excess cushion.
High ROE suggests efficient equity use, but narrow margins and moderate liquidity may constrain growth or profitability expansion.
Revenue growth is modest at 6.4%, but earnings per share (-2.2%) and free cash flow (-28.3%) are declining sharply, alongside a net income contraction of 10.5%. These trends signal stagnant or deteriorating profitability.
Negative cash flow and earnings growth are red flags for long-term investor confidence and potential shareholder returns.
The stock trades slightly below its estimated fair value ($154.04 vs. $149.67), offering a P/E of 14.3, which is reasonable for a mature retail company. However, the NAV per share ($28.96) is significantly lower than the current price, suggesting potential undervaluation relative to liquidation value.
The fair value premium and NAV gap create a valuation dichotomy—appealing to value investors but requiring scrutiny of intrinsic worth.
Recent news is overwhelmingly positive, with multiple sources highlighting raised guidance, comparative value analyses, and positive earnings call transcripts. This suggests strong market sentiment and potential for upside surprises.
Positive news sentiment can drive short-term demand and justify higher valuations, but its sustainability depends on execution of guidance.
The only quality indicator is the stability of operating margins, which are neither improving nor declining. There is no evidence of consistent operational excellence or margin expansion.
Stable but unremarkable quality metrics limit ANF’s appeal to investors seeking high-quality, defensible businesses.
The stock exhibits high volatility (ATR 4.9%), a current ratio of 1.49 (adequate but not robust liquidity), and a historically extreme drawdown (Calmar ratio 0.60), indicating significant past volatility and risk of sharp corrections.
Elevated risk metrics suggest potential for substantial losses during downturns, requiring cautious positioning.
StockIQ conclusion
Abercrombie & Fitch (ANF) combines technical resilience and positive news sentiment with fundamental strengths in profitability and modest valuation appeal. However, its growth challenges—particularly declining earnings and cash flow—alongside elevated risk metrics and overbought technical conditions create a cautious outlook. The stock’s moderate investor score reflects this balance, where short-term optimism is tempered by structural growth headwinds and volatility. Investors should monitor execution of guidance and macroeconomic conditions, as these could meaningfully alter the stock’s trajectory.
Written automatically from the computed data shown on this page only — not investment advice.
🗓️ 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
62
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
5d ago · $138.61
Evidence: Narrative Gap moved from 43 to 5 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
34
Quality
58
Value
67
Momentum
65
Risk
42
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
64
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 Abercrombie & Fitch (ANF) has centered on its strong stock performance, with headlines highlighting a **54% one-year return** and **323.4% five-year gain**, outpacing broader market benchmarks. Analysts debate whether the stock remains undervalued—some suggest it’s **19% undervalued** after raised guidance, while others warn of potential overvaluation amid rapid growth. Insider sales and comparisons with competitors like American Eagle also feature, alongside discussions of tariff-related cash inflows and long-term investment potential.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Abercrombie & Fitch Company. News trend score: 100. Reason: 12 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
34
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
40
Psychology
40
Fundamentals
64
Technical
65
Valuation
67
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
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.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price (3M)
+56%
Market Narrative
51
Fundamental Reality
40
Narrative Gap
+11
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior for ANF is dominated by euphoric momentum, where extreme positive sentiment and overbought conditions align with detached valuation metrics. Overconfidence in price momentum over fundamentals and minimal panic signals suggest traders are prioritizing short-term gains. The key open question is whether the narrative gap—where optimism (83) vastly exceeds reality (40)—will sustain momentum or trigger a reversion. Herding remains mild, but the extreme euphoria score (72) may amplify vulnerability to a correction if momentum stalls.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 03:11 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"One of the Fastest-Growing Renewable Energy Companies on Wall Street and a Specialty Retailer Outperforming its Industry."
"Abercrombie & Fitch has delivered a very strong 5 year share price run, which returned 323.4%."
"current valuation checks give a mixed signal, with the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) estimate pointing to an intrinsic value above the recent market price."
"Abercrombie & Fitch Slips — Buyers are piling into the retail sector's most beaten-down department store names this week, but the money has to come from somewhere, and one recent momentum winner is paying the price."
🧠 Market Brain events driving this
📈 4D 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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — 72/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock splits methodologies into two stark camps: Jesse Livermore’s high-scoring model sees a clear positive trend in the price action he would exploit, while nearly every other framework flags significant red flags. The efficient-market proponents and Schwager’s technical approach remain neutral or lukewarm, but the bulk of value, growth, and defensive investors—from Graham to Lynch—reject it outright, citing weak valuation, risk, or lack of quality. Even the cyclical and behavioral analysts (like Marks’ late-cycle or Mackay’s crowd psychology) warn of overvaluation or speculative excess, while the most bearish models (Nelson and Housel) suggest the stock is stretched or volatile enough to trigger panic selling. Only Livermore’s momentum-driven approach stands apart, highlighting how divergent signals can emerge when one framework prioritizes short-term price patterns over fundamental or cyclical risks.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 72
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 57
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 48
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 48
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 46
Mixed — doesn't clearly pass Graham's tests
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 44
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 41
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 39
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 37
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 36
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)
🔴 35
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
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 29
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 27
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 27
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
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 300 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 · 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.
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
—
Operating Margin
13.3%
Net Margin
9.6%
EBITDA Margin
16.2%
ROE
36.1%
ROA
14.3%
ROIC
—
EPS
$10.71
Cash
$759.54M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
1.49
Debt/Equity
—
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$135.76
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$154.04
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
+13.5%
🟢 Appears cheap relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
12.6%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 12.6% | $426.03M | $390.85M |
| 2 | 10.1% | $468.94M | $394.69M |
| 3 | 7.5% | $504.33M | $389.44M |
| 4 | 5.0% | $529.67M | $375.23M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $542.91M | $352.85M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$378.37M
Terminal Value
$8.56B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$5.56B
Enterprise Value
$7.47B
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$7.47B
*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
$28.96
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$28.96
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 12 positive, 6 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
ChartMill · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Abercrombie & Fitch Company (ANF) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 62/100, 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.
ANF currently scores 62/100 (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, ANF's estimated fair value is $154.04, which is 13.5% above the current price of $135.76. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
ANF's technical score is 65/100, 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: Estimated fair value: $154.04 vs. price $135.76 (+13.5%); Operating margin is stable or improving over time; Return on equity (ROE): 36.1% — strong.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: ATR: 4.8% of price; Earnings per share (EPS) growth: -2.2%; Free cash flow growth: -28.3%.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for ANF.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 11 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lipesky Scott D. | Open Market Sale | 4.9.2026 | 2,000 | -2,000 | $146.82 |
| Robinson Kenneth B. | Open Market Sale | 28.8.2026 | 800 | -800 | $149.69 |
| HENCHEL GREGORY J | Open Market Sale | 28.8.2026 | 30,000 | -30,000 | $146.65 |
| Lipesky Scott D. | Open Market Sale | 28.8.2026 | 5,000 | -5,000 | $149.00 |
| Rust Jay | Open Market Sale | 28.8.2026 | 5,000 | -5,000 | $147.50 |
| Lipesky Scott D. | Open Market Sale | 10.8.2026 | 10,000 | -10,000 | $115.00 |
| Lipesky Scott D. | Open Market Sale | 4.8.2026 | 10,000 | -10,000 | $110.00 |
| Lipesky Scott D. | Open Market Sale | 4.8.2026 | 162,534 | -10,000 | $110.00 |
| ANDERSON KERRII B | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 91.044 | +91.044 | — |
| Coulter Suzanne M | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 232.319 | +232.319 | — |
| Coulter Suzanne M | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 28,054 | +232 | — |
| ANDERSON KERRII B | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 4,221 | +91 | — |
| Lipesky Scott D. | Open Market Sale | 28.7.2026 | 10,000 | -10,000 | $105.00 |
| Lipesky Scott D. | Open Market Sale | 16.7.2026 | 10,000 | -10,000 | $100.00 |
| Lipesky Scott D. | Open Market Sale | 16.7.2026 | 182,534 | -10,000 | $100.00 |
| McCluskey Helen | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 3.6.2026 | 2,089 | -2,089 | — |
| Robinson Kenneth B. | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.6.2026 | 2,160 | +2,160 | — |
| Nunez Arturo | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 3.6.2026 | 2,089 | +2,089 | — |
| Robinson Kenneth B. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 3.6.2026 | 2,089 | +2,089 | — |
| TRAVIS NIGEL | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 3.6.2026 | 3,355 | +3,355 | — |
| McCluskey Helen | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.6.2026 | 2,160 | +2,160 | — |
| Robinson Kenneth B. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 3.6.2026 | 2,089 | -2,089 | — |
| TRAVIS NIGEL | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 3.6.2026 | 2,089 | -2,089 | — |
| TRAVIS NIGEL | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 3.6.2026 | 1,266 | -1,266 | — |
| Nunez Arturo | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.6.2026 | 2,160 | +2,160 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
4,164,237 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 3,599,182 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
58.7% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 69.4% 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