Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$273.41
▲ $0.53 (+0.2%)
Market data updated: 09/17 02:20 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/17/2026
News analyzed: 09/17/2026
Market Cap
$13.05B
Day Range
$270.88 - $282.91
52-Week Range
$144.26 - $303.31
Beta
—
Next Earnings
03.11.2026
CRL 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.
+80.3% (1Y)
Strengths: 7/28 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: 0.00
Risk
Biggest negative driver
Net margin
Net margin: -3.6% (negative)
Fundamental
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
84/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
90/100
Analog Quality
+9.2%
Median 40D Outcome
49/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
53%
+10.2% … +11.4%
🟡 Base
13%
-0.7% … -0.4%
🔴 Bearish
33%
-15.1% … -6.8%
Typical timeframe (based on real historical rates clearing a 60% bar): 40 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 +3.0%.
Echo #1 — Momentum Breakout
2 occurrence(s) · 100% historical success
Echo #2 — Trend Acceleration
2 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 | 47% (25%–70%) | -0.3% | -8.0% … +4.4% | +0.6% |
| 10D | 53% (30%–75%) | +1.3% | -4.8% … +3.2% | +1.1% |
| 20D | 53% (30%–75%) | +3.0% | -5.9% … +10.4% | +1.3% |
| 40D | 67% (42%–85%) | +9.2% | -4.9% … +19.1% | +2.2% |
| 60D | 67% (42%–85%) | +12.0% | -4.6% … +16.1% | +2.7% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-06-25 | 84/100 | Uptrend | +11.1% | +25.5% |
| 2020-10-30 | 81/100 | Consolidation | +3.0% | +14.6% |
| 2024-04-09 | 78/100 | Uptrend | -8.1% | -22.4% |
| 2020-09-09 | 77/100 | Uptrend | +13.1% | +12.0% |
| 2018-12-14 | 77/100 | Consolidation | -6.8% | +12.8% |
| 2021-03-10 | 76/100 | Consolidation | +10.3% | +21.8% |
| 2018-04-04 | 75/100 | Consolidation | -0.8% | +5.3% |
| 2018-08-16 | 75/100 | Consolidation | +9.7% | +13.2% |
| 2019-08-13 | 74/100 | Consolidation | -0.3% | -1.6% |
| 2021-10-06 | 74/100 | Consolidation | -4.9% | -7.6% |
| 2020-09-24 | 74/100 | Consolidation | +10.4% | +17.5% |
| 2021-05-18 | 73/100 | Uptrend | +10.4% | +27.6% |
| 2023-02-21 | 73/100 | ✓ Uptrend | -18.4% | -19.2% |
| 2025-11-11 | 72/100 | Uptrend | +12.3% | +7.0% |
| 2026-01-30 | 71/100 | Uptrend | -15.1% | -20.8% |
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
48
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
32
Quality
47
Value
50
Momentum
50
Risk
48
Sentiment
92
Fundamental
35
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING CRL...
Recent media coverage of Charles River Laboratories highlights its strategic advancements in **automated manufacturing**, particularly the launch of a fully automated production suite for its Endosafe® endotoxin testing cartridges, which enhances efficiency, traceability, and capacity. Analysts also emphasize the company’s **strong demand in drug substance analytics (DSA)** and **diverse client base**, though they note risks like rising costs and market volatility. The broader pharmaceutical sector’s rebound and growth in **non-animal testing alternatives**—such as organ-on-chip and AI-driven biosimulation—position Charles River as a key player in evolving R&D and regulatory testing trends. Stock performance and upward price targets reflect optimism amid these shifts.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Charles River Laboratories. News trend score: 92. Reason: 8 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 1 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
42
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
37
Psychology
49
Fundamentals
35
Technical
50
Valuation
50
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
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, sentiment, and valuation keep confirming each other upward while the actual fundamentals deteriorate.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Price (3M)
+48%
Market Narrative
54
Fundamental Reality
37
Narrative Gap
+17
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant **herding** behavior (score 80) reflects synchronized movement with peers, suggesting traders are aligning without clear conviction. While **euphoria** (45) and **overconfidence** (30) persist due to positive sentiment and relative momentum, the lack of divergence from peers implies passive, not aggressive, participation. The **narrative gap** (+15) and stagnant fundamentals (0.0% revenue/margin) may reinforce confirmation bias, but no panic or FOMO signals are present. The key question: *Will traders exit en masse if peers diverge, or will the gap between narrative and fundamentals widen further?*
Updated: 09/09/2026, 04:48 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"strong guidance and a bullish analyst outlook support continued optimism"
"Opportunities center on non-animal, pharma and regulatory testing, driven by organ-on-chip, organoids, AI biosimulation, genomics and in vitro toxicity platforms"
"Charles River Laboratories has significantly outperformed the market"
"Charles River Laboratories International... has successfully implemented... Endosafe® Cartridge Technology Automated Manufacturing Suite"
📈 7D 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 — 86/100
🔴 Weakest match
Philip Fisher — 9/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for CRL reflects deep methodological disagreements about risk, timing, and valuation. Samuel Armstrong Nelson’s high score suggests he’d see this stock as oversold and ripe for a cyclical rebound, aligning with his preference for contrarian, momentum-driven opportunities. In contrast, Fisher and Veblen’s near-zero scores indicate they’d dismiss it outright—Fisher because it lacks the long-term quality and growth he prized, while Veblen would view its trajectory as hollow, driven by speculative rather than productive forces. Meanwhile, the middle-ground approaches—like Housel’s ‘holdable but not effortless’ or Loeb’s ‘moderate risk’—highlight a cautious but not outright dismissive stance, acknowledging potential but not strong conviction. The efficient-market camp and Graham’s strict criteria further underscore skepticism, framing the stock as either unselectable or too risky for defensive investors, while Marks’ late-cycle warning adds a macroeconomic caution that overshadows even the more optimistic signals.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 86
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 57
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 50
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)
🟡 48
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)
🟡 46
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 44
Pattern consistent with a crowd delusion Mackay would flag
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 40
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 38
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 36
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 36
Risk/valuation combination Marks would flag as a caution sign
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 22
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?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 45%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 12
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 9
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
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.
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
—
Operating Margin
0.6%
Net Margin
-3.6%
EBITDA Margin
10.7%
ROE
-4.6%
ROA
-2.0%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$2.91
Cash
$213.77M
Total Debt
$166.00K
Current Ratio
1.29
Debt/Equity
0.00
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
$63.85
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$1.22
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 8 positive, 11 neutral, 1 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 15.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 15.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Zacks · 11.9.2026
Business Wire · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Benzinga · 11.9.2026
MT Newswires · 11.9.2026
Business Wire · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 8.9.2026
Zacks · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 1.9.2026
Yahoo · 1.9.2026
Zacks · 1.9.2026
Zacks · 1.9.2026
Charles River Laboratories (CRL) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 48/100, 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.
CRL currently scores 48/100 (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.
CRL'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: 0.00; Price is above the 50-day average; Price is above the 200-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Net margin: -3.6% (negative); Operating margin is eroding over time; Calmar: 0.14 (3y annualized return 9.1% / max drawdown 63.5%).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for CRL.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 7 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FOSTER JAMES C | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 25.8.2026 | 21,132 | +21,132 | $194.12 |
| FOSTER JAMES C | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 25.8.2026 | 12,429 | -12,429 | — |
| FOSTER JAMES C | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 25.8.2026 | 12,429 | +12,429 | $208.44 |
| FOSTER JAMES C | Open Market Sale | 25.8.2026 | 33,561 | -33,561 | $300.00 |
| FOSTER JAMES C | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 25.8.2026 | 21,132 | -21,132 | — |
| FOSTER JAMES C | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 25.8.2026 | 7,044 | -21,132 | — |
| FOSTER JAMES C | Open Market Sale | 25.8.2026 | 31,596 | -33,561 | $300.00 |
| FOSTER JAMES C | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 25.8.2026 | 52,728 | +21,132 | $194.12 |
| FOSTER JAMES C | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 25.8.2026 | 12,429 | -12,429 | — |
| FOSTER JAMES C | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 25.8.2026 | 65,157 | +12,429 | $208.44 |
| Parisotto Shannon M | Open Market Sale | 19.8.2026 | 2,039 | -2,039 | $294.12 |
| Girshick Birgit | Gift | 19.8.2026 | 528 | -528 | — |
| Parisotto Shannon M | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 19.8.2026 | 2,039 | +2,039 | $194.12 |
| Parisotto Shannon M | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 19.8.2026 | 2,039 | -2,039 | — |
| Andrews Nancy C | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 18.8.2026 | 573 | -573 | — |
| Andrews Nancy C | Open Market Sale | 18.8.2026 | 573 | -573 | $285.24 |
| Andrews Nancy C | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 18.8.2026 | 573 | +573 | $164.30 |
| Parisotto Shannon M | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 11.8.2026 | 3,714 | -3,714 | — |
| Girshick Birgit | Open Market Sale | 11.8.2026 | 6,500 | -6,500 | $279.90 |
| Girshick Birgit | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 11.8.2026 | 6,500 | -6,500 | — |
| Parisotto Shannon M | Open Market Sale | 11.8.2026 | 3,714 | -3,714 | $279.66 |
| Parisotto Shannon M | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 11.8.2026 | 3,714 | +3,714 | $179.66 |
| Girshick Birgit | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 11.8.2026 | 6,500 | +6,500 | $179.66 |
| Parisotto Shannon M | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 11.8.2026 | 8,521 | +3,714 | $179.66 |
| Parisotto Shannon M | Open Market Sale | 11.8.2026 | 4,807 | -3,714 | $279.66 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
2,535,053 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 3,419,974 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
45.9% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 41.6% 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