Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$318.50
▼ $4.79 (-1.5%)
Market data updated: 09/17 02:24 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/16/2026
News analyzed: 09/17/2026
Market Cap
$60.78B
Day Range
$318.06 - $323.39
52-Week Range
$244.82 - $377.54
Beta
—
Next Earnings
03.11.2026
COR 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.
+9.7% (1Y)
Strengths: 4/31 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
🟢 Bullish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Operating margin stability
Operating margin is stable or improving over time
Quality
Biggest negative driver
Liquidity risk
Current ratio: 0.90
Risk
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
86/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
92/100
Analog Quality
-0.9%
Median 40D Outcome
65/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
27%
+5.0% … +8.4%
🟡 Base
20%
-0.5% … -0.0%
🔴 Bearish
53%
-9.8% … -3.4%
📌 Bottom line: Out of 15 similar historical cases for this stock, 27% (95% CI 11%–52%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of -1.1%.
Echo #1 — Trend Acceleration
4 occurrence(s) · 75% 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 | 47% (25%–70%) | +0.2% | -2.6% … +4.4% | +0.4% |
| 10D | 33% (15%–58%) | -0.8% | -4.3% … +1.8% | +0.6% |
| 20D | 27% (11%–52%) | -1.1% | -5.7% … +1.9% | +1.9% |
| 40D | 40% (20%–64%) | -0.9% | -6.2% … +4.2% | +2.5% |
| 60D | 47% (25%–70%) | -0.7% | -6.1% … +9.3% | +3.4% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2017-07-10 | 86/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -12.9% | -10.4% |
| 2019-12-09 | 85/100 | Consolidation | -1.1% | -0.7% |
| 2026-03-13 | 81/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -8.8% | -20.1% |
| 2020-10-28 | 81/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +7.7% | +13.7% |
| 2024-08-26 | 81/100 | Consolidation | -3.9% | +2.8% |
| 2019-02-28 | 81/100 | Consolidation | -6.5% | -3.1% |
| 2021-08-13 | 81/100 | Consolidation | +3.4% | +5.4% |
| 2019-07-25 | 80/100 | Uptrend | -0.4% | +4.3% |
| 2022-08-30 | 79/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -4.8% | +13.8% |
| 2018-10-12 | 79/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +0.4% | -14.1% |
| 2023-01-03 | 79/100 | Consolidation | -2.0% | -3.0% |
| 2018-12-04 | 78/100 | Consolidation | -15.3% | -9.1% |
| 2024-09-17 | 78/100 | Consolidation | -0.6% | -1.1% |
| 2025-02-13 | 76/100 | Consolidation | +5.5% | +13.8% |
| 2024-10-31 | 76/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +10.3% | +13.3% |
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.
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
49
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
58
Quality
58
Value
45
Momentum
36
Risk
36
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
37
Institutional
67
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING COR...
Recent media coverage of Cencora has highlighted its financial performance and strategic initiatives. Investors are focusing on the company’s strong Q3 earnings—with a 12% year-over-year increase in adjusted EPS—and an upgraded 2026 guidance, driving a 22.6% stock rise over 90 days. Additionally, Cencora’s launch of a **Cell and Gene Therapy Enablement** program, aimed at supporting health systems in scaling advanced therapies, has been noted as a key growth area. However, concerns remain about drug-price pressures and risks tied to its **MWI (Medical Window)** division, which partially offset its positive momentum.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Cencora. News trend score: 100. Reason: 15 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
16
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
41
Psychology
18
Fundamentals
37
Technical
36
Valuation
45
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.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price (3M)
+17%
Market Narrative
62
Fundamental Reality
41
Narrative Gap
+21
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior suggests **herding** dominates as COR’s underperformance relative to peers (-1.9% vs -2.7%) aligns with crowd behavior, while euphoria (score 22) hints at lingering optimism from momentum and valuation premiums. The narrative gap (24) implies traders may overestimate positive narratives versus fundamentals. Key open question: Will traders double down on relative underperformance or pivot if peer weakness persists? Overconfidence (14) and anchoring (14) act as secondary forces, reinforcing recent moves but not overriding herd dynamics.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 04:47 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"adjusted earnings per share of US$4.48, up 12% year over year, along with a higher fiscal 2026 adjusted earnings outlook"
"Cencora launches CGT Enablement to help health systems build and scale cell and gene therapy programs"
"share price up 22.6% over 90 days and a 1 year total shareholder return of 16.1%"
📈 11D 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 — 85/100
🔴 Weakest match
Walter Bagehot — 1/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock divides methodologies sharply, with some seeing potential in its growth dynamics while others flag severe red flags. Thorstein Veblen’s model highlights alignment between growth and real value creation, suggesting a favorable structural fit, but Jesse Livermore’s neutral stance reflects indecision due to unclear trends. Meanwhile, the efficient-market camp and Charles Mackay’s crowd psychology signals lean cautiously positive, though neither endorses a strong buy. On the opposite end, Benjamin Graham and Walter Bagehot’s near-zero scores expose deep concerns—Graham’s strict valuation and defensive criteria are violated, while Bagehot’s liquidity warnings signal systemic fragility. Even Morgan Housel and Howard Marks, who tolerate moderate risk, treat it as a cautious hold at best, while Fisher, Schwager, and Lynch dismiss it outright for lacking quality, discipline, or growth-at-a-reasonable-price. The divide underscores whether the stock’s perceived momentum (backed by Veblen and Mackay) outweighs its structural vulnerabilities (rejected by Graham, Loeb, and Bagehot).
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 85
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)
🟢 73
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)
🟢 69
Growth appears aligned with real value creation
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 55
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)
🟡 51
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)
🟡 48
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 44
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 41
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 37
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 27
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 22
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 13
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 5
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 3
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 (2 bullish · 7 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.
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
3.6%
Operating Margin
0.8%
Net Margin
0.5%
EBITDA Margin
1.1%
ROE
103.1%
ROA
2.0%
ROIC
—
EPS
$8.02
Cash
$4.36B
Total Debt
$7.66B
Current Ratio
0.90
Debt/Equity
5.08
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 14.8.2026 | $0.600 |
| 15.5.2026 | $0.600 |
| 14.5.2026 | $0.600 |
| 13.2.2026 | $0.600 |
| 12.2.2026 | $0.600 |
| 14.11.2025 | $0.600 |
| 13.11.2025 | $0.600 |
| 15.8.2025 | $0.550 |
| 14.8.2025 | $0.550 |
| 16.5.2025 | $0.550 |
| 15.5.2025 | $0.550 |
| 14.2.2025 | $0.550 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$318.50
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$292.52
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-8.2%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
10.4%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 10.4% | $3.54B | $3.25B |
| 2 | 8.5% | $3.84B | $3.23B |
| 3 | 6.5% | $4.09B | $3.16B |
| 4 | 4.5% | $4.27B | $3.03B |
| 5 | 2.5% | $4.38B | $2.85B |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$3.21B
Terminal Value
$69.07B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$44.89B
Enterprise Value
$60.41B
Net Debt
$3.30B
Equity Value
$57.10B
*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
$7.72
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$81.67
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 15 positive, 3 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
SeekingAlpha · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 15.9.2026
Motley Fool · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Motley Fool · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
ChartMill · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Zacks · 11.9.2026
Benzinga · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Motley Fool · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Motley Fool · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Motley Fool · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Cencora (COR) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 49/100, 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.
COR currently scores 49/100 (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, COR's estimated fair value is $292.52, which is 8.2% below the current price of $318.50. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
COR's technical score is 36/100, 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: Operating margin is stable or improving over time; Return on equity (ROE): 103.1% — strong; Price is above the 50-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Current ratio: 0.90; Debt/equity: 5.08; Price is below the 200-day average.
Yes — COR 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 — 6 purchases and 3 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Krikorian Lazarus | Open Market Sale | 1.9.2026 | 985 | -985 | $325.97 |
| Campbell Elizabeth S | Open Market Sale | 24.8.2026 | 19,455 | -11,300 | $324.12 |
| Campbell Elizabeth S | Open Market Sale | 24.8.2026 | 11,300.471 | -11,300.471 | $324.12 |
| Cooper Ellen | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.7.2026 | 97 | +97 | $311.34 |
| NALLY DENNIS M | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.7.2026 | 113 | +113 | $311.34 |
| Tyler Lauren M | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.7.2026 | 97 | +97 | $311.34 |
| Cooper Ellen | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.7.2026 | 893 | +97 | $311.34 |
| NALLY DENNIS M | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.7.2026 | 13,188 | +113 | $311.34 |
| Tyler Lauren M | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.7.2026 | 4,456 | +97 | $311.34 |
| Battaglia Silvana | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 58.204 | +58.204 | $240.53 |
| Campbell Elizabeth S | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 49.889 | +49.889 | $240.53 |
| Battaglia Silvana | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 23,624 | +58 | $240.53 |
| Campbell Elizabeth S | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 30,756 | +50 | $240.53 |
| Boratto Eva C | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.6.2026 | 21,304 | +21,304 | — |
| Tyler Lauren M | Open Market Purchase | 22.6.2026 | 550 | +550 | $270.23 |
| Tyler Lauren M | Open Market Purchase | 22.6.2026 | 4,359 | +550 | $270.23 |
| DURCAN DERMOT MARK | Open Market Purchase | 18.6.2026 | 4,000 | +4,000 | $274.19 |
| DURCAN DERMOT MARK | Open Market Purchase | 18.6.2026 | 31,767 | +4,000 | $274.19 |
| DURCAN DERMOT MARK | Open Market Purchase | 28.5.2026 | 4,000 | +4,000 | $266.26 |
| DURCAN DERMOT MARK | Open Market Purchase | 28.5.2026 | 27,767 | +4,000 | $266.26 |
| Cooper Ellen | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.5.2026 | 99 | +99 | $304.00 |
| NALLY DENNIS M | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.5.2026 | 116 | +116 | $304.00 |
| Tyler Lauren M | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.5.2026 | 99 | +99 | $304.00 |
| Cooper Ellen | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.5.2026 | 796 | +99 | $304.00 |
| NALLY DENNIS M | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.5.2026 | 13,075 | +116 | $304.00 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
4,528,193 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 5,165,335 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
48.5% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 50.7% 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