Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$215.50
▼ $3.55 (-1.6%)
Market data updated: 09/20 09:40 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/20/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$31.82B
Day Range
$215.26 - $220.17
52-Week Range
$135.39 - $225.80
Beta
—
Next Earnings
28.10.2026
Support
$186.03
Resistance
$225.80
BIIB 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.
+49.9% (1Y)
Strengths: 10/30 factors positiveRisk: Medium
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
Leverage risk
Debt/equity: 0.34
Risk
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $180.81 vs. price $215.50 (-16.1%)
Fair Value
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
87/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
92/100
Analog Quality
+1.2%
Median 40D Outcome
59/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
40%
+3.0% … +11.1%
🟡 Base
13%
+0.3% … +0.3%
🔴 Bearish
47%
-8.2% … -5.8%
Typical timeframe (based on real historical rates clearing a 60% bar): 10 trading days.
📌 Bottom line: Out of 15 similar historical cases for this stock, 40% (95% CI 20%–64%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of +0.3%.
Echo #1 — Trend Acceleration
9 occurrence(s) · 33% historical success
Echo #2 — Momentum Breakout
1 occurrence(s) · 0% historical success
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 | 33% (15%–58%) | -0.1% | -2.8% … +2.7% | -0.0% |
| 10D | 33% (15%–58%) | -1.5% | -4.0% … +1.9% | -0.3% |
| 20D | 40% (20%–64%) | +0.3% | -6.3% … +3.1% | -0.4% |
| 40D | 53% (30%–75%) | +1.2% | -5.9% … +5.5% | -1.4% |
| 60D | 67% (42%–85%) | +4.3% | -9.8% … +7.8% | -0.7% |
Sample size: 15 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-06-23 | 87/100 | ✓ Uptrend | +0.3% | +11.1% |
| 2026-06-01 | 85/100 | Uptrend | +12.4% | +15.0% |
| 2017-12-21 | 85/100 | Consolidation | +7.5% | -14.0% |
| 2017-10-04 | 84/100 | Uptrend | +0.3% | +1.2% |
| 2026-03-24 | 83/100 | Consolidation | +3.3% | +6.9% |
| 2017-10-23 | 82/100 | Uptrend | -5.8% | +4.2% |
| 2023-06-01 | 82/100 | Uptrend | -5.8% | -12.4% |
| 2018-01-31 | 82/100 | Uptrend | -18.8% | -20.4% |
| 2017-08-21 | 81/100 | Consolidation | +12.3% | +9.4% |
| 2026-05-15 | 79/100 | Uptrend | +2.9% | +8.3% |
| 2022-12-06 | 79/100 | ✓ Uptrend | -6.8% | -7.3% |
| 2023-02-14 | 78/100 | Consolidation | -9.2% | +7.4% |
| 2023-06-16 | 78/100 | Consolidation | -7.2% | -14.0% |
| 2026-03-10 | 76/100 | ✓ Uptrend | -4.5% | +4.3% |
| 2026-01-05 | 76/100 | Uptrend | +1.2% | +5.2% |
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 XLV (this stock's sector).
Cross-stock analogs — real other companies, not this stock's own history.
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
54
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
29d ago · $216.78
Evidence: המניה במגמת עלייה ברורה ללא טווח מסחר מוגדר בטווח הזמן שנבדק.
What happened after
29d ago · $216.78
Evidence: 10 bullish / 1 bearish technical signals agreeing
What happened after
31d ago · $221.56
Evidence: +4.4pp vs. sector average today
What happened after
31d ago · $221.56
Evidence: המניה במגמת עלייה ברורה ללא טווח מסחר מוגדר בטווח הזמן שנבדק.
What happened after
31d ago · $221.56
Evidence: 7 bullish / 3 bearish technical signals agreeing
What happened after
32d ago · $213.22
Evidence: 7 bullish / 3 bearish technical signals agreeing
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.
🕰️ StockIQ Time Machine
What did StockIQ know — and when? Pick a date from the real accumulated history.
As of August 18, 2026
Then
58
$213.42
Now
54
$215.50
What happened since
Signals detected by this date
No signals detected by this date
🧬 STOCK DNA
This stock's profile across 8 real dimensions — a research tool, not a recommendation
Growth
34
Quality
47
Value
38
Momentum
56
Risk
54
Sentiment
98
Fundamental
61
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING BIIB...
Recent coverage highlights Biogen’s strategic shift beyond its traditional neurology focus, with executives touting an “inflection point” toward sustainable revenue growth and a broadened pipeline that includes Alzheimer’s treatments. The company presented its outlook at the Wells Fargo Healthcare Conference, while HSBC kept a “Reduce” rating but lifted its price target to $175. Overall, the media narrative centers on Biogen’s pipeline expansion and financial outlook rather than new product approvals.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Biogen. News trend score: 98. Reason: 13 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 5 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
24
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
37
Psychology
27
Fundamentals
61
Technical
56
Valuation
38
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental 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 is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
Price (3M)
+10%
Market Narrative
67
Fundamental Reality
37
Narrative Gap
+30
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
Market behavior suggests a herding dynamic dominates, with BIIB moving in lockstep with its peers. The strong alignment, combined with high news sentiment and a sizable price premium, may be reinforcing collective confidence while anchoring around resistance levels. At the same time, muted momentum and modest RSI hint at underlying uncertainty. The key open question is whether the stock will maintain this peer‑driven trajectory or diverge if fundamental gaps, such as earnings growth, become more salient. The narrative gap of 21 points underscores this tension.
Updated: 09/13/2026, 11:21 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Biogen (NasdaqGS: BIIB) and Eisai launched **LEQEMBI IQLIK**, a once-weekly subcutaneous injection for early Alzheimer's disease, now available in the U.S. for initiation and maintenance therapy."
"presentations of data at the 16th European Epilepsy Congress (EEC) [...] support the **disease-modifying potential** of zorevunersen for Dravet syndrome."
"Piper Sandler analyst reiterates Biogen with a **Overweight** and raises the price target from **$225 to $245**."
📈 18D 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 — 91/100
🔴 Weakest match
Thorstein Veblen — 14/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark contrast in verdicts for BIIB reflects deep methodological divides between investors prioritizing stability, liquidity, and defensive principles versus those focused on growth, valuation, or market efficiency. Walter Bagehot’s near-perfect score highlights his focus on liquidity and resilience in crises, while Philip Fisher and Thorstein Veblen’s low scores underscore their skepticism of speculative or non-essential growth—Fisher’s framework demands proven quality and competitive advantage, which this stock lacks, and Veblen’s critique flags unchecked growth motives. Meanwhile, Benjamin Graham’s mixed verdicts reveal tension between his conservative and enterprising investor approaches: the stock fails the strict margin-of-safety test but might appeal to the risk-tolerant. Investors like Howard Marks and Jesse Livermore hedge their views, noting potential overvaluation or lack of clear momentum, whereas Samuel Nelson’s cyclical pessimism and Charles Mackay’s absence of crowd mania suggest a more cautious, macro-driven perspective. The divide between defensive (Bagehot, Loeb) and growth-oriented (Fisher, Lynch) methodologies is especially pronounced here, with no single school of thought reaching consensus.
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 91
Strong liquidity — would likely survive a real credit squeeze
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟢 67
Reasonable capital-preservation profile
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)
🟢 66
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 60
Some signs of crowd excitement building
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)
🟡 50
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 46
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)
🟡 45
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 44
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
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 43
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 39
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 38
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 36
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 33
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 24
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 17
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 14
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
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 (4 bullish · 4 bearish · 3 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
75.7%
Operating Margin
—
Net Margin
13.1%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
7.1%
ROA
4.4%
ROIC
—
EPS
$8.83
Cash
$3.01B
Total Debt
$6.29B
Current Ratio
2.68
Debt/Equity
0.34
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$215.50
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$180.81
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-16.1%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
-0.9%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | -0.9% | $2.03B | $1.86B |
| 2 | -0.1% | $2.03B | $1.71B |
| 3 | 0.8% | $2.05B | $1.58B |
| 4 | 1.6% | $2.08B | $1.47B |
| 5 | 2.5% | $2.13B | $1.39B |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$2.05B
Terminal Value
$33.63B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$21.86B
Enterprise Value
$29.88B
Net Debt
$3.28B
Equity Value
$26.60B
*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
$124.11
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$17.59
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 13 positive, 2 neutral, 5 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Benzinga · 17.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 12.9.2026
MarketBeat · 12.9.2026
ChartMill · 10.9.2026
Benzinga · 10.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 9.9.2026
CNBC · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
Biogen (BIIB) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 54/100, 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.
BIIB currently scores 54/100 (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, BIIB's estimated fair value is $180.81, which is 16.1% below the current price of $215.50. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
BIIB's technical score is 56/100, which currently reads as neutral — 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: Debt/equity: 0.34; Current ratio: 2.68; Price is above the 50-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $180.81 vs. price $215.50 (-16.1%); Operating margin is eroding over time; Calmar: -0.10 (3y annualized return -5.7% / max drawdown 57.7%).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for BIIB.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 4 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parini Michael | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.9.2026 | 7,405 | +7,405 | — |
| Minor Lloyd | Open Market Sale | 4.8.2026 | 593 | -593 | $200.96 |
| Minor Lloyd | Open Market Sale | 4.8.2026 | 2,689 | -593 | $200.96 |
| Minor Lloyd | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 593 | -593 | $203.34 |
| Minor Lloyd | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 3,282 | -593 | $203.34 |
| Pangalos Menelas N | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 9.6.2026 | 2,370 | -2,370 | — |
| SHERWIN STEPHEN A | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 1,505 | +1,505 | — |
| Pangalos Menelas N | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 1,505 | +1,505 | — |
| Pangalos Menelas N | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 9.6.2026 | 2,370 | +2,370 | — |
| Freire Maria C | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 2,005 | +2,005 | — |
| LANGER SUSAN | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 1,505 | +1,505 | — |
| Mantas Jesus B | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 1,505 | +1,505 | — |
| Rowinsky Eric K | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 1,505 | +1,505 | — |
| Patolawala Monish D | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 1,505 | +1,505 | — |
| Minor Lloyd | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 1,505 | +1,505 | — |
| HAWKINS WILLIAM A | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 1,505 | +1,505 | — |
| SHERWIN STEPHEN A | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 15,193 | +1,505 | — |
| HAWKINS WILLIAM A | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 10,365 | +1,505 | — |
| Rowinsky Eric K | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 25,844 | +1,505 | — |
| Freire Maria C | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 8,820 | +2,005 | — |
| Mantas Jesus B | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 11,263 | +1,505 | — |
| Patolawala Monish D | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 5,215 | +1,505 | — |
| LANGER SUSAN | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 6,634 | +1,505 | — |
| Pangalos Menelas N | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 9.6.2026 | 2,370 | +2,370 | — |
| Pangalos Menelas N | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 3,875 | +1,505 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
5,726,631 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 5,453,901 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
59.5% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 63.5% 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