Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$275.28
▼ $0.72 (-0.3%)
Market data updated: 09/20 02:08 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$72.74B
Day Range
$273.74 - $277.72
52-Week Range
$239.51 - $315.47
Beta
—
Next Earnings
28.10.2026
Support
$263.11
Resistance
$305.44
CI 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.
-6.3% (1Y)
Strengths: 8/30 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
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Earnings per share (EPS) growth
Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 83.0%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
Operating margin stability
Operating margin is eroding over time
Quality
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
83/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
90/100
Analog Quality
-2.0%
Median 40D Outcome
53/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
33%
+6.3% … +11.2%
🟡 Base
13%
+0.5% … +0.6%
🔴 Bearish
53%
-13.2% … -8.6%
Typical timeframe (based on real historical rates clearing a 60% bar): 5 trading days.
📌 Bottom line: Out of 15 similar historical cases for this stock, 33% (95% CI 15%–58%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of -4.8%.
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%) | -3.1% | -5.1% … +4.8% | +0.3% |
| 10D | 33% (15%–58%) | -0.9% | -5.1% … +2.3% | +0.6% |
| 20D | 33% (15%–58%) | -4.8% | -12.0% … +4.0% | +1.2% |
| 40D | 27% (11%–52%) | -2.0% | -10.0% … +3.3% | +1.5% |
| 60D | 27% (11%–52%) | -2.5% | -10.2% … +5.1% | +2.3% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-03-06 | 83/100 | Consolidation | -9.2% | -14.2% |
| 2026-06-23 | 81/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +0.6% | -2.5% |
| 2018-03-02 | 80/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -14.7% | -10.6% |
| 2026-05-18 | 79/100 | Consolidation | +1.8% | -3.0% |
| 2025-10-29 | 79/100 | Consolidation | -6.9% | -9.7% |
| 2023-11-08 | 78/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -12.7% | +10.9% |
| 2019-02-04 | 78/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -11.4% | -15.7% |
| 2023-02-02 | 78/100 | Consolidation | -4.8% | -15.5% |
| 2024-12-05 | 78/100 | Downtrend | -13.3% | -2.2% |
| 2022-02-24 | 77/100 | Consolidation | +7.9% | +15.6% |
| 2022-03-10 | 76/100 | Consolidation | +11.2% | +12.6% |
| 2025-03-25 | 76/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +6.3% | -0.8% |
| 2025-07-08 | 76/100 | Consolidation | -13.2% | -6.5% |
| 2024-01-26 | 76/100 | Consolidation | +14.9% | +18.4% |
| 2026-06-04 | 75/100 | Consolidation | +0.5% | -1.6% |
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.
| Symbol | Matched date | Similarity | 20D outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| OSPN | 2026-06-24 | 64/100 | +9.1% |
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
50
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 23, 2026
Then
54
$277.51
Now
50
$275.28
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
71
Quality
47
Value
55
Momentum
16
Risk
40
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
50
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING CI...
Recent media coverage on Cigna has primarily focused on its strategic initiatives in healthcare innovation, particularly the launch of its **Connected Benefits Platform**, which aims to enhance digital engagement and cost management for employers. While broader industry trends—such as rising healthcare costs, including GLP-1 medication expenses—impact competitors like UnitedHealth and CVS, Cigna’s specific developments have been less prominently detailed in the provided sources. The available headlines suggest a focus on sector-wide challenges rather than Cigna-specific news.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Cigna. News trend score: 100. Reason: 13 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 4 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
17
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
37
Psychology
45
Fundamentals
50
Technical
16
Valuation
55
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
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.
Price (3M)
-1%
Market Narrative
61
Fundamental Reality
37
Narrative Gap
+24
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant herding behavior suggests traders are aligning with peers rather than acting on independent signals. The narrow narrative-reality gap (22) implies some disconnect between market perception and fundamentals, but the lack of extreme volatility or momentum extremes keeps herding contained. Anchoring at 4.6% above support may act as a subtle psychological barrier, while the absence of panic or overconfidence signals a cautious, synchronized approach. The key question remains whether this herding reflects a shared view or a temporary pause before divergence.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 03:24 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"employers brace for rising healthcare costs outpacing inflation"
"CVS stock has left its peers behind—or has it?"
"Cigna’s connected benefits platform links medical and supplemental coverage"
"Cigna outperformed the market by 1.31% annually over 20 years"
📈 13D 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 — 88/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor) — 24/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock’s starkly divided verdicts reflect deep philosophical clashes between growth-focused and value-driven methodologies. Peter Lynch, Morgan Housel, and Edgar Lawrence Smith—all aligned on long-term compounding—see it as a high-potential candidate, with Lynch noting the price hasn’t yet reflected its growth potential and Housel praising its patient-holder appeal. Meanwhile, Benjamin Graham and Philip Fisher, who prioritize rigorous valuation or quality metrics, dismiss it outright, with Fisher calling it lacking in his signature traits and Graham’s Enterprising Investor variant flagging it as statistically overpriced. The divide widens further when contrasting cyclical/market-timing approaches: Jesse Livermore and Samuel Armstrong Nelson warn of overbought conditions or trend reversals, while Howard Marks (Market Cycle) situates it mid-cycle, suggesting neither extreme risk nor opportunity. Even within the same investor’s frameworks (e.g., Graham’s two scores), the tension between strict value discipline and pragmatic flexibility becomes clear.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 88
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 81
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 74
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟢 74
The kind of quiet compounder a patient holder could actually stick with
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)
🟢 73
Looks like a real 'buy and hold for a decade' candidate
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟢 65
Mixed — doesn't clearly pass Graham's tests
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 56
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
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)
🟡 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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 51
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 47
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)
🟡 43
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 40
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 38
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 25
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 25
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 24
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
Based on the last 300 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (0 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.
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
21.8%
Operating Margin
3.3%
Net Margin
2.2%
EBITDA Margin
4.4%
ROE
14.3%
ROA
3.8%
ROIC
—
EPS
$22.33
Cash
$7.68B
Total Debt
$592.00M
Current Ratio
0.85
Debt/Equity
0.01
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 8.9.2026 | $1.560 |
| 4.6.2026 | $1.560 |
| 3.6.2026 | $1.560 |
| 5.3.2026 | $1.560 |
| 4.3.2026 | $1.560 |
| 4.12.2025 | $1.510 |
| 3.12.2025 | $1.510 |
| 4.9.2025 | $1.510 |
| 3.9.2025 | $1.510 |
| 3.6.2025 | $1.510 |
| 2.6.2025 | $1.510 |
| 5.3.2025 | $1.510 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
$155.32
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$118.30
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 13 positive, 3 neutral, 4 negative out of the last 20 articles.
SeekingAlpha · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Trefis · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Zacks · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Zacks · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
Trefis · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
Motley Fool · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
24/7 Wall St. · 9.9.2026
Cigna (CI) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 50/100, 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.
CI currently scores 50/100 (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.
CI's technical score is 16/100, 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: Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 83.0%; Net income growth: 73.5%; Debt/equity: 0.01.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Operating margin is eroding over time; Current ratio: 0.85; Calmar: -0.03 (3y annualized return -1.1% / max drawdown 33.4%).
Yes — CI has a real recorded dividend payment history on StockIQ. See the Dividends section on this page for the actual per-share amounts and dates.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 6 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Neville Everett | Open Market Sale | 3.9.2026 | 617 | -617 | $284.05 |
| Evanko Brian C | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.9.2026 | 6,716 | +6,716 | — |
| Evanko Brian C | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.9.2026 | 3,113 | +3,113 | — |
| Kurian George | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.8.2026 | 108.664 | +108.664 | $276.08 |
| Jones Nicole S | Open Market Sale | 18.8.2026 | 2,677 | -2,677 | $279.61 |
| Holgerson Bryan | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.8.2026 | 0.984 | +0.984 | $275.25 |
| Jones Nicole S | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 5.8.2026 | 1,301 | -1,301 | — |
| Jones Nicole S | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 5.8.2026 | 1,301 | +1,301 | $192.02 |
| Jones Nicole S | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 5.8.2026 | 28,557 | +1,301 | $192.02 |
| Jones Nicole S | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 5.8.2026 | 0 | -1,301 | — |
| Jones Nicole S | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 4.8.2026 | 14,045 | -14,045 | — |
| Jones Nicole S | Open Market Sale | 4.8.2026 | 19,436 | -19,436 | $276.27 |
| Jones Nicole S | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 4.8.2026 | 14,045 | +14,045 | $192.02 |
| Jones Nicole S | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 4.8.2026 | 46,692 | +14,045 | $192.02 |
| Jones Nicole S | Open Market Sale | 4.8.2026 | 27,256 | -19,436 | $276.27 |
| Jones Nicole S | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 4.8.2026 | 1,301 | -14,045 | — |
| Holgerson Bryan | Grant/Award from Employer | 23.7.2026 | 0.946 | +0.946 | $286.29 |
| Holgerson Bryan | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.7.2026 | 0.887 | +0.887 | $291.80 |
| Kates Jamie G | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 12.6.2026 | 899 | -899 | — |
| Kates Jamie G | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 12.6.2026 | 899 | +899 | $152.89 |
| Kates Jamie G | Open Market Sale | 12.6.2026 | 899 | -899 | $298.61 |
| Kates Jamie G | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 12.6.2026 | 3,267 | +899 | $152.89 |
| Kates Jamie G | Open Market Sale | 12.6.2026 | 2,368 | -899 | $298.61 |
| Kates Jamie G | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 12.6.2026 | 0 | -899 | — |
| Koka Durga Prasad | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.6.2026 | 729 | -729 | $275.53 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
6,274,787 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 4,766,977 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
54.3% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 59.1% 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