Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Discretionary · ·
$45.37
▼ $0.06 (-0.1%)
Market data updated: 09/19 07:44 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
$10.50B
Day Range
$44.88 - $45.56
52-Week Range
$32.73 - $52.68
Beta
—
Next Earnings
09.11.2026
Support
$42.10
Resistance
$52.68
CART is a stock from the Consumer Cyclical sector — Retail, automotive, and leisure — demand rises and falls with economic sentiment and consumers' disposable income.
-0.1% (1Y)
Strengths: 9/29 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
🔴 Bearish
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $65.75 vs. price $45.37 (+44.9%)
Fair Value
Biggest negative driver
Death Cross
SMA 50 recently crossed below SMA 200
Technical
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
54
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
59
Quality
58
Value
62
Momentum
18
Risk
48
Sentiment
92
Fundamental
70
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.
The provided sources do not contain any direct or recent media coverage about **Maplebear Inc.** Instead, the headlines focus on unrelated companies—such as **BMO, Instacart (Instaleap), Morrisons, Kroger, Uber, Costco, and World Market**—with no mention of Maplebear’s operations, financials, or recent developments. As a result, no summary of recent media coverage about Maplebear can be provided based on these sources.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Maplebear Inc.. News trend score: 92. Reason: 8 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 1 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
25
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
41
Psychology
27
Fundamentals
70
Technical
18
Valuation
62
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
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.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price (3M)
+2%
Market Narrative
38
Fundamental Reality
41
Narrative Gap
-3
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant psychological state is **Anchoring**, as traders appear fixated on the 3.2% distance from resistance. The narrative-reality gap (-11) hints at a disconnect where sentiment (30) lags behind objective metrics (41), possibly reinforcing resistance as a mental anchor. Euphoria and FOMO are muted by valuation discrepancies, while herding and panic are absent. The key question: will traders break the resistance anchor, or will anchoring persist despite the stock’s undervaluation relative to fundamentals?
Updated: 09/08/2026, 04:04 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"‘Instacart partners with World Market for one-hour delivery’ (Article 5) and ‘Instacart and World Market Announce Exclusive Partnership’ (Article 8)"
"‘Morrisons Partners with Instaleap to Enhance Online Order Fulfilment’ (Article 4) and ‘Tractor Supply’s Petsense selects Instacart for same-day delivery’ (Article 3)"
"‘Costco shuts down key service without notice’ (Article 9) and ‘Uber lays off 10% of its workforce’ (Article 7)"
📈 15D 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 — 95/100
🔴 Weakest match
Peter Lynch — 21/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The methodologies for CART split sharply between those emphasizing stability and those flagging fundamental or cyclical weaknesses. Walter Bagehot’s high score reflects confidence in liquidity and resilience during stress, while Charles Mackay and Howard Marks see it as a moderate risk without obvious speculative bubbles or cycle mispricing. In contrast, Benjamin Graham and Peter Lynch dismiss it outright—Graham’s defensive framework finds it lacking in safety, and Lynch’s growth-at-a-reasonable-price test isn’t met. Meanwhile, Fisher and Housel strike a cautious middle ground, acknowledging solid but unexceptional qualities, whereas Thorstein Veblen and Jack Schwager’s wizards would avoid it entirely, seeing it as either growth-chasing or lacking a clear trading edge. The divide underscores whether the stock’s stability (Bagehot, Marks) outweighs its perceived cyclical or valuation risks (Graham, Lynch).
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 95
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 84
Strong liquidity — would likely survive a real credit squeeze
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 72
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟢 66
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)
🟡 59
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 59
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 49
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 49
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 48
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 45
Somewhere in the middle of the cycle
Key question
Where are we in the cycle right now — near a hot extreme, or a cold one?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 44
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)
🟡 41
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)
🟡 39
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 37
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
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 21
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
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 a downtrend (1 bullish · 9 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.
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
73.7%
Operating Margin
13.3%
Net Margin
11.9%
EBITDA Margin
15.7%
ROE
17.8%
ROA
12.1%
ROIC
—
EPS
$1.68
Cash
$637.00M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
2.40
Debt/Equity
—
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$45.37
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$65.75
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
+44.9%
🟢 Appears cheap relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
13.7%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 13.7% | $1.03B | $949.15M |
| 2 | 10.9% | $1.15B | $965.63M |
| 3 | 8.1% | $1.24B | $957.61M |
| 4 | 5.3% | $1.31B | $925.08M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $1.34B | $869.91M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$910.00M
Terminal Value
$21.11B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$13.72B
Enterprise Value
$18.39B
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$18.39B
*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
$9.01
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$7.35
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 8 positive, 11 neutral, 1 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 18.9.2026
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 · 11.9.2026
TechCrunch · 11.9.2026
The Wall Street Journal · 11.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
WWD · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
TheStreet · 10.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 9.9.2026
Benzinga · 9.9.2026
Maplebear Inc. (CART) 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.
CART 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, CART's estimated fair value is $65.75, which is 44.9% above the current price of $45.37. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
CART's technical score is 18/100, 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: Estimated fair value: $65.75 vs. price $45.37 (+44.9%); Free cash flow growth: 46.1%; Operating margin is stable or improving over time.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: SMA 50 recently crossed below SMA 200; Calmar: 0.27 (3y annualized return 10.4% / max drawdown 38.0%); Net income growth: -2.2%.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for CART.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 9 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Laughton Mary Beth | Open Market Sale | 27.8.2026 | 10,890 | -10,236 | $50.33 |
| Laughton Mary Beth | Open Market Sale | 27.8.2026 | 10,236 | -10,236 | $50.33 |
| Fong Morgan | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 24.8.2026 | 18,390 | +18,390 | $7.32 |
| Fong Morgan | Open Market Sale | 24.8.2026 | 4,299 | -4,299 | $50.47 |
| Fong Morgan | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 24.8.2026 | 18,390 | -18,390 | — |
| Fong Morgan | Open Market Sale | 24.8.2026 | 14,091 | -14,091 | $49.81 |
| Fong Morgan | Open Market Sale | 24.8.2026 | 529,911 | -4,299 | $50.47 |
| Fong Morgan | Open Market Sale | 24.8.2026 | 534,210 | -14,091 | $49.81 |
| Fong Morgan | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 24.8.2026 | 73,560 | -18,390 | — |
| Fong Morgan | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 24.8.2026 | 548,301 | +18,390 | $7.32 |
| Rogers Chris | Open Market Sale | 19.8.2026 | 7,606 | -7,606 | $48.95 |
| Gupta Ravi | Open Market Sale | 19.8.2026 | 150,000 | -150,000 | $50.61 |
| Reuter Emily | Tax Withholding in Shares | 15.8.2026 | 19,188 | -19,188 | $48.88 |
| Rogers Chris | Tax Withholding in Shares | 15.8.2026 | 43,807 | -43,807 | $48.88 |
| Fong Morgan | Tax Withholding in Shares | 15.8.2026 | 14,167 | -14,167 | $48.88 |
| BLACKWOOD-KAPRAL LISA | Tax Withholding in Shares | 15.8.2026 | 6,103 | -6,103 | $48.88 |
| Reuter Emily | Open Market Sale | 13.8.2026 | 25,000 | -25,000 | $50.01 |
| SC US (TTGP), LTD. | Other Transaction | 10.8.2026 | 5,203,747 | -5,203,747 | — |
| SC US (TTGP), LTD. | Other Transaction | 10.8.2026 | 5,203,747 | -5,203,747 | — |
| SC US (TTGP), LTD. | Other Transaction | 10.8.2026 | 924,221 | -924,221 | — |
| SC US (TTGP), LTD. | Other Transaction | 10.8.2026 | 924,221 | -924,221 | — |
| SC US (TTGP), LTD. | Other Transaction | 10.8.2026 | 15,007,977 | -5,203,747 | — |
| SC US (TTGP), LTD. | Other Transaction | 10.8.2026 | 2,184,747 | -924,221 | — |
| SC US (TTGP), LTD. | Other Transaction | 10.8.2026 | 15,007,977 | -5,203,747 | — |
| SC US (TTGP), LTD. | Other Transaction | 10.8.2026 | 2,184,747 | -924,221 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
15,966,760 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 15,610,019 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
70.0% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 57.7% 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