Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Staples · ·
$83.10
▼ $1.90 (-2.2%)
Market data updated: 09/20 01:13 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/20/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$10.05B
Day Range
$83.09 - $84.71
52-Week Range
$83.09 - $128.90
Beta
—
Next Earnings
02.11.2026
Support
$83.09
Resistance
$109.42
CLX is a stock from the Consumer Defensive sector — Food, beverages, and household products — steady demand even in a recession, since these are essential consumer goods.
-33.0% (1Y)
Strengths: 7/29 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
Earnings per share (EPS) growth
Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 189.8%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $72.56 vs. price $83.10 (-12.7%)
Fair Value
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (76/100), but fair-value analysis scores this stock as relatively expensive (43/100) — the growth story and the current price aren't fully aligned.
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
72/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
88/100
Analog Quality
+9.8%
Median 40D Outcome
52/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
53%
+10.4% … +16.3%
🟡 Base
13%
-0.1% … +0.6%
🔴 Bearish
33%
-5.8% … -3.2%
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, 53% (95% CI 30%–75%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of +6.2%.
Echo #1 — Oversold Reversal
5 occurrence(s) · 80% 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 | 60% (36%–80%) | +3.2% | -1.8% … +4.4% | -0.0% |
| 10D | 67% (42%–85%) | +3.2% | -2.2% … +8.3% | -0.1% |
| 20D | 53% (30%–75%) | +6.2% | -2.9% … +11.3% | -0.2% |
| 40D | 73% (48%–89%) | +9.8% | -0.1% … +18.7% | -0.6% |
| 60D | 73% (48%–89%) | +8.3% | +0.6% … +18.2% | -1.6% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-06-15 | 72/100 | Downtrend | +20.7% | +20.2% |
| 2026-05-11 | 69/100 | Downtrend | +10.8% | +18.8% |
| 2026-03-26 | 69/100 | Downtrend | -3.4% | -9.3% |
| 2023-10-12 | 67/100 | ✓ Downtrend | +10.2% | +17.7% |
| 2023-09-28 | 67/100 | ✓ Downtrend | -5.8% | +10.3% |
| 2025-11-19 | 67/100 | ✓ Downtrend | +1.0% | +25.2% |
| 2022-02-14 | 66/100 | High Volatility | -8.6% | +8.3% |
| 2022-10-07 | 65/100 | Downtrend | +11.9% | +14.3% |
| 2023-11-01 | 62/100 | ✓ Downtrend | +24.2% | +26.3% |
| 2026-04-27 | 62/100 | Downtrend | -0.4% | -3.0% |
| 2025-10-29 | 61/100 | Downtrend | -2.6% | +2.3% |
| 2022-03-16 | 59/100 | Downtrend | +10.5% | -0.3% |
| 2026-03-12 | 57/100 | ✓ Downtrend | -3.2% | -12.5% |
| 2025-12-26 | 55/100 | Downtrend | +14.9% | +6.3% |
| 2025-06-18 | 54/100 | Downtrend | +6.2% | +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 XLP (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
45
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
63
$106.69
Now
45
$83.10
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
76
Quality
50
Value
43
Momentum
6
Risk
28
Sentiment
74
Fundamental
58
Institutional
No data available
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
Not enough comparably-scored stocks yet to show similar matches.
SCANNING CLX...
Recent media coverage of Clorox (CLX) has centered on its financial performance and margin pressures amid inflationary challenges. Reports highlight the company’s efforts to offset rising costs through cost savings, ERP optimization, and pricing adjustments, though fiscal 2027 gross margins are projected at 42%. Analysts also note a 9.3% stock decline since its last earnings report, prompting speculation about potential rebounds or long-term sustainability. Comparisons with other consumer goods stocks occasionally appear, but Clorox’s focus remains on operational resilience and profitability.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Clorox. News trend score: 74. Reason: 8 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
32
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
38
Psychology
100
Fundamentals
58
Technical
6
Valuation
43
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
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.
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
Price (3M)
-13%
Market Narrative
44
Fundamental Reality
38
Narrative Gap
+6
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant anchoring behavior (91) reflects traders fixating on the 0.5% support level, despite mixed signals like negative momentum and oversold conditions. The narrative gap (21) suggests optimism (59) outpaces reality (38), reinforcing detached expectations. Overconfidence (24) and euphoria (24) may stem from the +26% DCF premium, while herding (45) and cautious selling (46) hint at peer comparisons. The key question: will traders break free from the support anchor or double down on overvalued expectations?
Updated: 09/09/2026, 03:26 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"CLX is using cost savings... but the FY27 gross margin is still projected at 42%"
"Clorox (CLX) Down 9.3% Since Last Earnings Report"
📈 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 — 98/100
🔴 Weakest match
Walter Bagehot — 1/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for CLX reflects deep methodological disagreements about risk, valuation, and market psychology. At the top, Nelson and Schwager see strong technical or cyclical tailwinds—Nelson’s near-perfect score suggests a clear oversold position, while Schwager’s disciplined setup highlights favorable risk/reward dynamics. Meanwhile, growth-focused investors like Lynch and Veblen (both scoring 71 and 81) argue the stock’s price lags its underlying potential, though Veblen’s slightly lower score hints at caution about real value alignment. On the other end, Graham’s near-zero scores and Bagehot’s warning about liquidity risk underscore a fundamentalist or liquidity-centric view that dismisses CLX as structurally flawed or overpriced. The middle ground—Marks (cycle), Housel, and Fisher—shows nuanced but guarded optimism, with Marks’ mid-cycle caution contrasting Fisher’s outright rejection of the stock’s growth/quality profile. The contrast between Livermore’s bearish trend-following stance and Marks’ more balanced cycle analysis further illustrates how timing and trend interpretation split even similarly risk-aware investors.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 98
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)
🟢 84
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟢 81
Growth appears aligned with real value creation
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 81
A real, disciplined setup with favorable reward/risk
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 78
Looks early-to-mid cycle, not overextended
Key question
Where are we in the cycle right now — near a hot extreme, or a cold one?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 71
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 49
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 45
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 42
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 34
Weak case — Malkiel/Bogle would say a low-cost index is the simpler bet
Key question
Do I actually have an edge here, or do I just think I do?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🔴 34
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 29
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
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 23
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 21
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 17
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 1
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
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 · 11 bearish · 0 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.
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.
Gross Margin
45.2%
Operating Margin
—
Net Margin
11.4%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
252.3%
ROA
14.6%
ROIC
—
EPS
$6.56
Cash
$167.00M
Total Debt
$2.48B
Current Ratio
0.84
Debt/Equity
7.74
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 12.8.2026 | $1.250 |
| 22.4.2026 | $1.240 |
| 21.4.2026 | $1.240 |
| 28.1.2026 | $1.240 |
| 27.1.2026 | $1.240 |
| 22.10.2025 | $1.240 |
| 21.10.2025 | $1.240 |
| 13.8.2025 | $1.240 |
| 12.8.2025 | $1.240 |
| 23.4.2025 | $1.220 |
| 22.4.2025 | $1.220 |
| 29.1.2025 | $1.220 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$83.10
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$72.56
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-12.7%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
0.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.0% | $761.30M | $698.44M |
| 2 | 0.7% | $766.28M | $644.96M |
| 3 | 1.3% | $776.01M | $599.22M |
| 4 | 1.9% | $790.63M | $560.10M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $810.40M | $526.70M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$761.00M
Terminal Value
$12.78B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$8.31B
Enterprise Value
$11.34B
Net Debt
$2.32B
Equity Value
$9.02B
*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
$2.58
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$11.86
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 8 positive, 8 neutral, 4 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Zacks · 11.9.2026
ChartMill · 11.9.2026
ChartMill · 11.9.2026
ChartMill · 11.9.2026
Benzinga · 11.9.2026
Benzinga · 11.9.2026
Kiplinger · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
24/7 Wall St. · 9.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 9.9.2026
Zacks · 7.9.2026
Yahoo · 7.9.2026
Zacks · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
Clorox (CLX) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 45/100, 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.
CLX currently scores 45/100 (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, CLX's estimated fair value is $72.56, which is 12.7% below the current price of $83.10. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
CLX's technical score is 6/100, 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: 189.8%; Free cash flow growth: 57.6%; Net income growth: 189.3%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $72.56 vs. price $83.10 (-12.7%); Current ratio: 0.84; Calmar: -0.31 (3y annualized return -15.7% / max drawdown 51.0%).
Yes — CLX 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 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Barton Nina | Tax Withholding in Shares | 22.7.2026 | 1,681 | -1,681 | $95.69 |
| Barton Nina | Tax Withholding in Shares | 22.7.2026 | 26,443 | -1,681 | $95.69 |
| Hyder Chris T | Tax Withholding in Shares | 15.7.2026 | 277 | -277 | $94.75 |
| Hyder Chris T | Tax Withholding in Shares | 15.7.2026 | 76,860 | -277 | $94.75 |
| Breber Pierre R | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 353.625 | +353.625 | — |
| Shattock Matthew J | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 550.084 | +550.084 | — |
| WEINER RUSSELL J | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 353.625 | +353.625 | — |
| Plaines Stephanie | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 288.139 | +288.139 | — |
| WILLIAMS CHRISTOPHER J | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 288.139 | +288.139 | — |
| WILLIAMS CHRISTOPHER J | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 22,660 | +288 | — |
| Shattock Matthew J | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 20,947 | +550 | — |
| Breber Pierre R | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 3,495 | +354 | — |
| WEINER RUSSELL J | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 18,600 | +354 | — |
| Plaines Stephanie | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 8,117 | +288 | — |
| Hyder Chris T | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.6.2026 | 42,118 | +42,118 | $94.97 |
| Marriner Kirsten | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.6.2026 | 26,324 | +26,324 | $94.97 |
| Bellet Luc | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.6.2026 | 42,118 | +42,118 | $94.97 |
| Hilt Angela C | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.6.2026 | 26,324 | +26,324 | $94.97 |
| Marriner Kirsten | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.6.2026 | 64,294 | +26,324 | $94.97 |
| Hilt Angela C | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.6.2026 | 56,111 | +26,324 | $94.97 |
| Hyder Chris T | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.6.2026 | 77,087 | +42,118 | $94.97 |
| Bellet Luc | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.6.2026 | 62,756 | +42,118 | $94.97 |
| Breber Pierre R | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.5.2026 | 41.711 | +41.711 | — |
| Shattock Matthew J | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.5.2026 | 270.796 | +270.796 | — |
| WILLIAMS CHRISTOPHER J | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.5.2026 | 297.01 | +297.01 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
10,673,741 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 13,522,338 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
66.0% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 63.6% 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