Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$29.98
▼ $0.94 (-3.0%)
Market data updated: 09/19 09:50 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
$8.47B
Day Range
$29.69 - $30.99
52-Week Range
$14.19 - $33.66
Beta
—
Next Earnings
03.11.2026
Support
$15.11
Resistance
$31.36
CAI 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.
-10.3% (1Y)
Strengths: 16/32 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
🔴 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): 97.0%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $12.70 vs. price $29.98 (-57.6%)
Fair Value
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (82/100), 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
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.
4d ago · $28.50
Evidence: Euphoria score crossed 55 (now 70)
What happened after
Still awaiting outcome
4d ago · $28.50
Evidence: FOMO score jumped from 13 to 51 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
82
Quality
58
Value
38
Momentum
82
Risk
40
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
30
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 Caris Life Sciences has centered on its advancements in precision oncology, particularly through AI-driven research. The company highlighted its participation in the IASLC 2026 World Conference on Lung Cancer, where seven studies on molecular profiling and AI-powered analysis for lung and pancreatic cancer were presented. Notably, Caris published a study in *npj Precision Oncology* validating an AI tool for optimizing pancreatic cancer treatment, linked to improved survival outcomes. Additionally, the firm launched a national ad campaign featuring Kevin Costner to promote early cancer detection via its Caris Detect platform. Analysts also discussed potential undervaluation of the stock.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Caris Life Sciences, Inc.. News trend score: 100. Reason: 13 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)
45
Psychology
82
Fundamentals
30
Technical
82
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.
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.
Price (3M)
+62%
Market Narrative
100
Fundamental Reality
45
Narrative Gap
+55
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant **herding** behavior suggests traders are aligning with peers rather than independent analysis, given the identical -1.6% move today. The **euphoria** and **overconfidence** scores reflect persistent valuation disconnects—high DCF premiums and EPS growth decoupling from price action. Meanwhile, **FOMO** and **panic signals** are muted by weak momentum and neutral RSI, despite positive sentiment. The key question: *Is this herd behavior driven by shared mispricing or a collective misreading of fundamentals?*
Updated: 09/09/2026, 02:19 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"AI-driven approach to optimize first-line treatment selection in pancreatic cancer, advancing a more personalized care path"
"presenting seven major precision oncology studies at the IASLC 2026 World Conference on Lung Cancer"
"new data on molecular profiling and AI-powered analysis for lung cancer care"
"AI-Guided Therapy Selection is Predictive of Longer Survival in Patients with Pancreatic Cancer"
🧠 Market Brain events driving this
📈 11D 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 — 90/100
🔴 Weakest match
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — 2/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide among methodologies, with Peter Lynch and Philip Fisher standing out as the most bullish, both scoring it near the top of their scales. Lynch’s high score reflects his focus on unrecognized growth potential, while Fisher’s endorsement highlights exceptional quality—two principles that align on identifying strong fundamentals with upside. In contrast, the majority of frameworks—particularly those rooted in defensive investing (Graham, Marks) or market efficiency (Malkiel/Bogle)—score it low, flagging concerns like valuation, risk, or cyclical overreach. Even more extreme are Mackay, Veblen, and Howard Marks, who see patterns of speculative excess or irrational exuberance, while Livermore’s neutral stance suggests no clear trend to exploit. The debate thus hinges on whether the stock’s fundamentals justify its premium (Lynch/Fisher) or if it’s overvalued, risky, or caught in a speculative bubble (Graham/Mackay).
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 90
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟢 83
Positive trend — the price action Livermore looked for
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟢 75
Exceptional company quality by Fisher's standards
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 71
Strong liquidity — would likely survive a real credit squeeze
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 55
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)
🟡 48
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 (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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 42
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)
🟡 37
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
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 32
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 25
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 21
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
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 19
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🔴 8
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🔴 2
Cycle looks stretched toward overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
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 (9 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.
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
5.6%
Net Margin
-8.4%
EBITDA Margin
8.3%
ROE
-11.8%
ROA
-6.0%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$3.22
Cash
$796.27M
Total Debt
$378.99M
Current Ratio
7.85
Debt/Equity
0.66
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$29.98
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$12.70
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-57.6%
🔴 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% | $83.62M | $76.71M |
| 2 | 19.4% | $99.82M | $84.02M |
| 3 | 13.8% | $113.55M | $87.68M |
| 4 | 8.1% | $122.77M | $86.97M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $125.84M | $81.79M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$66.89M
Terminal Value
$1.98B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$1.29B
Enterprise Value
$1.71B
Net Debt
$-417.28M
Equity Value
$2.12B
*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
$3.45
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$3.34
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 13 positive, 5 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 15.9.2026
MT Newswires · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
PR Newswire · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 6.9.2026
Simply Wall St. · 6.9.2026
Simply Wall St. · 5.9.2026
Yahoo · 5.9.2026
Yahoo · 2.9.2026
PR Newswire · 2.9.2026
Yahoo · 27.8.2026
PR Newswire · 27.8.2026
Benzinga · 27.8.2026
Benzinga · 26.8.2026
Caris Life Sciences, Inc. (CAI) 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.
CAI 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, CAI's estimated fair value is $12.70, which is 57.6% below the current price of $29.98. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
CAI's technical score is 82/100, 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): 97.0%; Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 69.8%; Free cash flow growth: 126.4%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $12.70 vs. price $29.98 (-57.6%); Net margin: -8.4% (negative); ATR: 5.0% of price.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for CAI.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 3 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spetzler David Baxley | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 4.9.2026 | 250,000 | +250,000 | $2.44 |
| Spetzler David Baxley | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 4.9.2026 | 250,000 | -250,000 | — |
| Spetzler David Baxley | Open Market Sale | 4.9.2026 | 119,212 | -119,212 | $24.76 |
| Spetzler David Baxley | Open Market Sale | 3.9.2026 | 84,900 | -84,900 | $25.32 |
| Spetzler David Baxley | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 3.9.2026 | 1,000,000 | +1,000,000 | $2.44 |
| Spetzler David Baxley | Open Market Sale | 3.9.2026 | 393,100 | -393,100 | $24.76 |
| Spetzler David Baxley | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 3.9.2026 | 1,000,000 | -1,000,000 | — |
| CASTLEMAN PETER M | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.8.2026 | 13,192 | +13,192 | — |
| Fredrickson David Paul | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.8.2026 | 13,192 | +13,192 | — |
| Gilliam Joseph E | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.8.2026 | 13,192 | +13,192 | — |
| PHILLIPS T DANNY | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.8.2026 | 13,192 | +13,192 | — |
| Minor Lloyd | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.8.2026 | 13,192 | +13,192 | — |
| Vacirca Jeff L | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.8.2026 | 13,192 | +13,192 | — |
| JOHANSEN LAURA I | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.8.2026 | 13,192 | +13,192 | — |
| HALBERT JON | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.8.2026 | 13,192 | +13,192 | — |
| JOHANSEN LAURA I | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.8.2026 | 343,897 | +13,192 | — |
| HALBERT JON | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.8.2026 | 131,813 | +13,192 | — |
| CASTLEMAN PETER M | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.8.2026 | 29,321 | +13,192 | — |
| Gilliam Joseph E | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.8.2026 | 29,321 | +13,192 | — |
| PHILLIPS T DANNY | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.8.2026 | 133,060 | +13,192 | — |
| Vacirca Jeff L | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.8.2026 | 62,863 | +13,192 | — |
| Minor Lloyd | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.8.2026 | 31,813 | +13,192 | — |
| Fredrickson David Paul | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.8.2026 | 31,813 | +13,192 | — |
| Knowles Jonathan Kenneth Charles | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.5.2026 | 1,600 | +1,600 | $15.62 |
| POSTE GEORGE | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.5.2026 | 1,600 | +1,600 | $15.62 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
13,684,372 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 14,757,565 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
46.8% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 47.8% 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