Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Energy · ·
$131.83
▼ $1.36 (-1.0%)
Market data updated: 09/19 07:11 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
$158.37B
Day Range
$131.48 - $133.33
52-Week Range
$85.57 - $141.62
Beta
—
Next Earnings
04.11.2026
Support
$107.61
Resistance
$141.62
COP is a stock from the Energy sector — Oil, gas, and renewable energy — highly volatile profitability, dependent on global commodity prices.
+41.0% (1Y)
Strengths: 8/27 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
🟡 Mixed
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Leverage risk
Debt/equity: 0.02
Risk
Biggest negative driver
Calmar Ratio (return vs. drawdown)
Calmar: 0.06 (3y annualized return 2.3% / max drawdown 38.1%)
Risk
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
88/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
92/100
Analog Quality
+4.2%
Median 40D Outcome
60/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
53%
+5.6% … +12.5%
🟡 Base
13%
-0.1% … +0.6%
🔴 Bearish
33%
-7.3% … -6.2%
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 +1.5%.
Echo #1 — Trend Acceleration
12 occurrence(s) · 50% 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 | 67% (42%–85%) | +3.0% | -2.0% … +5.4% | +0.4% |
| 10D | 60% (36%–80%) | +2.2% | -1.3% … +7.9% | +0.7% |
| 20D | 53% (30%–75%) | +1.5% | -4.6% … +10.4% | +1.1% |
| 40D | 60% (36%–80%) | +4.2% | -1.1% … +7.7% | +1.3% |
| 60D | 73% (48%–89%) | +7.7% | -1.2% … +16.6% | +2.6% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-05-31 | 88/100 | Uptrend | +1.5% | +7.7% |
| 2018-06-20 | 88/100 | Consolidation | +3.3% | +8.9% |
| 2026-03-10 | 84/100 | ✓ Uptrend | +9.7% | +4.5% |
| 2018-01-31 | 84/100 | Uptrend | -8.4% | +10.4% |
| 2021-07-12 | 83/100 | Uptrend | -7.3% | +19.9% |
| 2018-09-11 | 83/100 | Consolidation | +11.1% | -6.8% |
| 2018-08-17 | 83/100 | Consolidation | +6.4% | -6.6% |
| 2017-11-14 | 82/100 | Uptrend | +0.9% | +4.3% |
| 2018-07-19 | 82/100 | Consolidation | -0.4% | +5.9% |
| 2021-11-04 | 79/100 | Uptrend | -3.0% | +24.9% |
| 2022-02-18 | 79/100 | Uptrend | +14.6% | +19.4% |
| 2026-01-23 | 79/100 | Uptrend | +11.7% | +22.3% |
| 2024-04-18 | 79/100 | ✓ Uptrend | -6.2% | -9.9% |
| 2026-04-13 | 78/100 | Uptrend | -6.5% | -12.6% |
| 2026-02-23 | 78/100 | ✓ Uptrend | +15.8% | +13.9% |
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 XLE (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
57
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
40
Quality
55
Value
50
Momentum
50
Risk
48
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
66
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING COP...
Recent media coverage of **ConocoPhillips** has been sparse, with no direct headlines or detailed reports about the company itself. Most available sources focus on broader energy sector trends—particularly Chevron—such as rising oil prices due to geopolitical tensions (e.g., Middle East supply fears) and Chevron’s long-term strategy in Venezuela. One note mentions Seaport Global initiating neutral coverage of ConocoPhillips, but no substantive developments about the company’s operations, financials, or major announcements are explicitly covered.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about ConocoPhillips. News trend score: 100. Reason: 14 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
26
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
40
Psychology
42
Fundamentals
66
Technical
50
Valuation
50
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.
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.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price (3M)
+22%
Market Narrative
60
Fundamental Reality
40
Narrative Gap
+20
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
Market behavior suggests investors are tightly anchored to the nearby resistance level, which dominates the psychological profile. The price’s modest gain, strong news sentiment, and alignment with peers reinforce a herding dynamic, while low volume and calm volatility keep panic and overconfidence muted. This anchoring may be limiting upside expectations despite the stock trading well above its 200‑day average. The key open question is whether the price will break through resistance or retreat, reshaping the prevailing mindset.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 03:48 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Chevron's CEO says 'patience pays off' in Venezuela"
"Seaport Global initiates ConocoPhillips (COP) at Neutral"
📈 14D 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 — 81/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor) — 15/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for COP reveals a clear split between patient, long-term investors and those wary of speculative or cyclical risks. Edgar Lawrence Smith and Morgan Housel’s high scores reflect their focus on durable, compounding businesses—both see COP as a ‘buy and hold’ candidate, praising its potential for steady, decade-long growth. In contrast, methodologies like Benjamin Graham’s and Peter Lynch’s—rooted in valuation discipline and growth-at-a-reasonable-price principles—score it far lower, dismissing it as either statistically overpriced or lacking the growth trajectory they demand. Meanwhile, cyclical or speculative-minded frameworks (e.g., Veblen or Nelson) flag COP as overbought or growth-chasing, while more neutral or market-neutral approaches (like Schwager or the efficient-market view) find little clear edge, leaving it in a ‘no clear edge’ or ‘mixed’ gray zone.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 81
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 79
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟢 71
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 58
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 56
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 50
Adequate but not exceptional liquidity
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 47
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 46
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 42
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 41
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 39
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 36
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 35%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 29
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 17
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
🔴 15
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.
🟡 Indicators are mixed — no clear bias (4 bullish · 6 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
62.1%
Operating Margin
—
Net Margin
13.6%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
12.4%
ROA
6.6%
ROIC
—
EPS
$6.36
Cash
$6.50B
Total Debt
$1.02B
Current Ratio
1.30
Debt/Equity
0.02
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 17.8.2026 | $0.840 |
| 11.5.2026 | $0.840 |
| 10.5.2026 | $0.840 |
| 18.2.2026 | $0.840 |
| 17.2.2026 | $0.840 |
| 17.11.2025 | $0.840 |
| 16.11.2025 | $0.840 |
| 18.8.2025 | $0.780 |
| 17.8.2025 | $0.780 |
| 19.5.2025 | $0.780 |
| 18.5.2025 | $0.780 |
| 14.2.2025 | $0.780 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
$51.45
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$51.45
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 14 positive, 4 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
ChartMill · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
ChartMill · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
ChartMill · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 15.9.2026
Benzinga · 15.9.2026
ConocoPhillips (COP) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 57/100, 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.
COP currently scores 57/100 (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.
COP's technical score is 50/100, 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: Debt/equity: 0.02; Price is above the 50-day average; Price is above the 200-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Calmar: 0.06 (3y annualized return 2.3% / max drawdown 38.1%); Earnings per share (EPS) growth: -18.7%; Net income growth: -13.6%.
Yes — COP 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 5 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kinney Shannon Browning | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.9.2026 | 24,080 | +24,080 | — |
| JOHNSON KIRK L. | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.9.2026 | 37,930 | +37,930 | — |
| Olds Nicholas G | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.9.2026 | 22,758 | +22,758 | — |
| LUNDQUIST ANDREW D | Open Market Sale | 21.8.2026 | 9,593 | -9,487 | $135.15 |
| LUNDQUIST ANDREW D | Open Market Sale | 21.8.2026 | 9,487 | -9,487 | $135.15 |
| Rose Kelly Brunetti | Open Market Sale | 20.8.2026 | 15,000 | -15,000 | $134.52 |
| NIBLOCK ROBERT A | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.6.2026 | 322 | +322 | $112.18 |
| NIBLOCK ROBERT A | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.6.2026 | 95,532 | +322 | $112.18 |
| Mulligan Sharmila | Open Market Sale | 10.6.2026 | 1,974 | -1,974 | $119.00 |
| Mulligan Sharmila | Open Market Sale | 10.6.2026 | 0 | -1,974 | $119.00 |
| LUNDQUIST ANDREW D | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.6.2026 | 2,936 | -2,936 | — |
| LUNDQUIST ANDREW D | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.6.2026 | 1,325 | -1,325 | $116.46 |
| LUNDQUIST ANDREW D | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.6.2026 | 2,936 | +2,936 | — |
| LUNDQUIST ANDREW D | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.6.2026 | 20,405 | +2,936 | — |
| LUNDQUIST ANDREW D | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.6.2026 | 19,080 | -1,325 | $116.46 |
| LUNDQUIST ANDREW D | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.6.2026 | 8,812 | -2,936 | — |
| McRaven William H. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 15.4.2026 | 2,230 | +2,230 | — |
| McRaven William H. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 15.4.2026 | 2,230 | +2,230 | — |
| LEACH TIMOTHY A | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 15.4.2026 | 2,230 | +2,230 | — |
| LEACH TIMOTHY A | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 15.4.2026 | 2,230 | +2,230 | — |
| LEACH TIMOTHY A | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 15.4.2026 | 413,441 | +2,230 | — |
| LEACH TIMOTHY A | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 15.4.2026 | 0 | +2,230 | — |
| McRaven William H. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 15.4.2026 | 8,097 | +2,230 | — |
| McRaven William H. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 15.4.2026 | 23,537 | +2,230 | — |
| Olds Nicholas G | Gift | 31.3.2026 | 1,903 | -1,903 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
16,764,745 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 18,512,066 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
46.5% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 55.9% 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