Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$2.49
▲ $0.03 (+1.2%)
Market data updated: 09/19 11:49 PM
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
$235.44M
Day Range
$2.45 - $2.49
52-Week Range
$1.30 - $3.24
Beta
—
Next Earnings
09.11.2026
Support
$2.17
Resistance
$2.94
CGEN 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.
+85.8% (1Y)
⚠️ Insufficient data for a reliable StockIQ Score
Only 3 of 7 categories available — Fundamental, Growth, Valuation, Quality unavailable.
Strengths: 3/12 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
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Price vs. SMA 50
Price is above the 50-day average
Technical
Biggest negative driver
Daily volatility (ATR)
ATR: 4.1% of price
Risk
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
51
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.
🕰️ StockIQ Time Machine
What did StockIQ know — and when? Pick a date from the real accumulated history.
As of August 29, 2026
Then
74
$2.60
Now
51
$2.49
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
No data available
Quality
No data available
Value
No data available
Momentum
48
Risk
42
Sentiment
62
Fundamental
No data available
Institutional
No data available
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
Not enough comparably-scored stocks yet to show similar matches.
This stock hasn't been analyzed by StockIQAI's movement engine yet — coverage is still expanding. Check back soon.
Recent media coverage of **Compugen Ltd.** has centered on its **Q2 2026 financial performance**, where the company reported a loss and missed revenue estimates, though it highlighted progress on its lead drug candidate, **COM701**, and a strong cash position. Analysts upgraded its stock rating to **"Buy"** due to optimism about future earnings, while discussions also touched on its participation in investor conferences and comparisons with peer medical stocks. Overall, the focus remains on its clinical pipeline and financial outlook.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Compugen Ltd.. News trend score: 62. Reason: 4 of the last 19 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
10
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
12
Fundamentals
—
Technical
48
Valuation
—
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
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.
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)
+24%
Market Narrative
44
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
-6
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
CGEN’s psychology score of 16 suggests a **FOMO-dominated** market behavior, driven by positive momentum (+6.1% ROC), moderate volume (0.52x avg), and neutral RSI (54). The narrative gap (6 points) hints at a slight disconnect between sentiment (62/100) and technicals, but no extreme bias is evident. Mild euphoria (score 5) may reflect modest overvaluation, while anchoring (13.5% from resistance) could subtly influence positioning. The key question: *Will momentum sustain, or will sentiment-driven buying fade?*
Updated: 09/08/2026, 04:06 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Compugen (CGEN) might move higher on growing optimism about its earnings prospects, which is reflected by its upgrade to a Zacks Rank #2 (Buy)."
"Advancing COM701 with Strong Cash Reserves"
"Compugen (CGEN) Reports Q2 Loss, Misses Revenue Estimates"
📈 9D Investor Psychology
Signal classification confidence: Medium (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
Charles Mackay — 78/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The methodologies here split sharply between cautious optimism and outright skepticism about CGEN, reflecting deep philosophical divides in investing. Charles Mackay’s high score suggests the stock avoids obvious crowd-driven mania, while Howard Marks’ mid-range verdict hints at a strong business but potentially inflated expectations—aligning with his preference for valuing assets relative to intrinsic worth. Meanwhile, the majority of frameworks—from Graham’s valuation constraints to Lynch’s growth uncertainty—hit neutral or indeterminate scores, lacking sufficient data to apply their core principles. On the other end, risk-averse voices like Loeb, Schwager, and Housel flag volatility or capital threats, prioritizing preservation over speculative upside, while the efficient-market camp dismisses the stock as unworthy of active picking. The contrast underscores whether CGEN’s profile leans toward a niche opportunity (for Mackay or Marks) or a speculative gamble (for the disciplined or patient investors).
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 78
No obvious signs of crowd mania
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)
🟢 69
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 64
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 52
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 50
Not enough balance-sheet/valuation data for a real Graham read
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 50
Not enough fundamentals data for a real Fisher read
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 50
Not enough growth data for a real Lynch read
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 50
Not enough balance-sheet data for a real Bagehot read
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 50
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 30%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 50
Not enough valuation data for a real Enterprising-Graham read
Key question
Is the stock statistically cheap enough to justify the extra risk?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 35
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 30
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 28
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🔴 15
Not enough dividend/growth data for a real Smith read
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 25%
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?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 30%
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 (3 bullish · 5 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 uptrend with no defined trading range in the period examined.
Medium 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.
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 4 positive, 13 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 19 articles.
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
PR Newswire · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 31.8.2026
Zacks · 31.8.2026
Zacks · 21.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 6.8.2026
GuruFocus.com · 6.8.2026
Moby · 4.8.2026
MarketBeat · 3.8.2026
Zacks · 3.8.2026
Associated Press · 3.8.2026
PR Newswire · 3.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 3.8.2026
Benzinga · 3.8.2026
GuruFocus.com · 31.7.2026
PR Newswire · 21.7.2026
PR Newswire · 20.7.2026
PR Newswire · 18.6.2026
Simply Wall St. · 18.6.2026
StockIQ doesn't currently have enough real data to compute a reliable score for Compugen Ltd. (CGEN) — only 3 of 7 categories are available right now. Rather than show a misleading number, this page shows which data is missing instead.
StockIQ doesn't give buy/sell recommendations — and for CGEN specifically, there currently isn't enough real data (only 3 of 7 categories available) to state even a factual score reliably. Check back once more data is available.
CGEN's technical score is 48/100, 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: Price is above the 50-day average; Price is above the 200-day average; +21.9% over the last 3 months relative to the index.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: ATR: 4.1% of price; MACD histogram is negative — falling momentum; Price is below the SAR point — downtrend.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for CGEN.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mahler Michelle | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.7.2026 | 13,500 | +13,500 | — |
| Hukkelhoven Mathias | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.7.2026 | 10,000 | +10,000 | — |
| Mahler Michelle | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.7.2026 | 18,000 | +18,000 | — |
| Hukkelhoven Mathias | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.7.2026 | 7,500 | +7,500 | — |
| Cohen-Dayag Anat | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.7.2026 | 100,000 | +100,000 | — |
| Kredo Russo Sharon | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.7.2026 | 24,000 | +24,000 | — |
| Perry Eran | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.7.2026 | 10,000 | +10,000 | — |
| ZWEIFACH SANFORD S | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.7.2026 | 10,000 | +10,000 | — |
| Halevy Gilead | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.7.2026 | 10,000 | +10,000 | — |
| ZWEIFACH SANFORD S | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.7.2026 | 7,500 | +7,500 | — |
| Halevy Gilead | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.7.2026 | 7,500 | +7,500 | — |
| Silberman David | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.7.2026 | 26,000 | +26,000 | — |
| Livnat Savitzky Kinneret | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.7.2026 | 10,000 | +10,000 | — |
| Livnat Savitzky Kinneret | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.7.2026 | 7,500 | +7,500 | — |
| Levine Zurit | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.7.2026 | 24,000 | +24,000 | — |
| Kredo Russo Sharon | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.7.2026 | 18,000 | +18,000 | — |
| Ferre Pierre | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.7.2026 | 70,000 | +70,000 | — |
| Silberman David | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.7.2026 | 19,500 | +19,500 | — |
| Ophir Eran | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.7.2026 | 200,000 | +200,000 | — |
| Perry Eran | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.7.2026 | 7,500 | +7,500 | — |
| Levine Zurit | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.7.2026 | 18,000 | +18,000 | — |
| Mahler Michelle | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.7.2026 | 36,625 | +13,500 | — |
| Mahler Michelle | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.7.2026 | 18,000 | +18,000 | — |
| ZWEIFACH SANFORD S | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.7.2026 | 20,180 | +7,500 | — |
| ZWEIFACH SANFORD S | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.7.2026 | 10,000 | +10,000 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
2,349,292 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 2,814,877 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
45.3% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 46.6% 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