Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Real Estate · ·
$29.09
▼ $0.21 (-0.7%)
Market data updated: 09/20 09:12 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/20/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$11.79B
Day Range
$28.96 - $29.91
52-Week Range
$25.89 - $86.99
Beta
—
Next Earnings
26.10.2026
Support
$25.89
Resistance
$33.82
CSGP is a stock from the Real Estate sector — REITs and real-estate companies — highly sensitive to interest rates and property prices.
-67.4% (1Y)
Strengths: 8/32 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
🔴 Bearish
Technical Trend
🔴 Bearish
Insiders
🟡 Mixed
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Free cash flow growth
Free cash flow growth: 166.1%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $7.49 vs. price $29.09 (-74.2%)
Fair Value
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
76/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
89/100
Analog Quality
-1.0%
Median 40D Outcome
50/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
27%
+6.3% … +9.3%
🟡 Base
13%
+0.8% … +0.9%
🔴 Bearish
60%
-15.4% … -8.5%
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, 27% (95% CI 11%–52%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of -4.2%.
Echo #1 — Momentum Breakout
1 occurrence(s) · 0% historical success
Echo #2 — Oversold Reversal
2 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 | 33% (15%–58%) | -1.4% | -5.6% … +4.2% | +0.3% |
| 10D | 27% (11%–52%) | -3.0% | -6.9% … +0.6% | +0.5% |
| 20D | 27% (11%–52%) | -4.2% | -11.0% … +3.4% | +0.7% |
| 40D | 40% (20%–64%) | -1.0% | -15.8% … +8.0% | +1.7% |
| 60D | 40% (20%–64%) | -3.4% | -20.5% … +5.1% | +2.4% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-06-23 | 76/100 | ✓ Downtrend | -8.5% | -3.2% |
| 2026-05-29 | 74/100 | Downtrend | -8.9% | +1.9% |
| 2026-05-07 | 71/100 | Downtrend | -3.1% | -14.8% |
| 2026-03-31 | 69/100 | Downtrend | -15.4% | -25.0% |
| 2022-04-26 | 66/100 | Downtrend | -4.2% | +3.0% |
| 2026-04-15 | 65/100 | Downtrend | -18.7% | -26.8% |
| 2025-01-02 | 62/100 | ✓ Downtrend | +8.4% | +11.8% |
| 2022-02-22 | 61/100 | Downtrend | +6.4% | -12.0% |
| 2024-12-17 | 60/100 | Downtrend | +1.0% | +7.2% |
| 2025-10-08 | 59/100 | Consolidation | -10.8% | -15.9% |
| 2025-05-09 | 59/100 | ✓ Downtrend | +5.8% | +29.1% |
| 2026-02-02 | 59/100 | Downtrend | -23.5% | -44.2% |
| 2026-03-17 | 58/100 | ✓ Downtrend | -11.2% | -26.2% |
| 2024-10-07 | 58/100 | Downtrend | +0.7% | -3.4% |
| 2025-06-02 | 58/100 | Downtrend | +11.8% | +22.1% |
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 XLRE (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
41
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
51
Quality
47
Value
33
Momentum
13
Risk
46
Sentiment
98
Fundamental
44
Institutional
50
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING CSGP...
Recent media coverage of CoStar Group has primarily focused on its **Apartments.com** platform, highlighting its integration with AI tools like OpenAI’s GPT-6 for apartment-hunting assistance. Additionally, the company’s stock received attention for CEO insider buying amid market volatility, while financial analysts, including RBC Capital, raised price targets, signaling optimism. Apartments.com also released its August 2026 rent growth report, reinforcing its role in the multifamily real estate data sector.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about CoStar Group. News trend score: 98. Reason: 11 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 3 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
31
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
37
Psychology
45
Fundamentals
44
Technical
13
Valuation
33
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
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.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
Price (3M)
-3%
Market Narrative
65
Fundamental Reality
37
Narrative Gap
+28
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s dominant **Loss Aversion** (58) reflects a cautious stance after a 3-month drawdown, with subdued volume reinforcing risk aversion. Overconfidence (45) and Euphoria (33) are muted by technical divergence—price lagging fundamentals and DCF overvaluation. The **narrative gap** (26) suggests traders may be clinging to outdated optimism despite weak momentum. The key question: *Will the gap widen as fundamentals diverge further, or will volume pick up on a catalyst?*
Updated: 09/08/2026, 04:02 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Apartments.com published its latest report on multifamily rent trends for August 2026"
"CEOs of ... CoStar bought over $20 million combined in company shares as each stock struggled in 2026"
"RBC raises price target on CoStar Group to $34 from $31"
📈 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 — 93/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jesse Livermore — 10/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock’s starkly divided verdicts reflect deep methodological contrasts: Samuel Armstrong Nelson’s near-perfect score (93) suggests a cyclical opportunity, while Jesse Livermore’s abysmal (14) flags a trend-defying setup. The divide between technical/cyclical thinkers (Nelson, Bagehot) and fundamentalists (Graham, Lynch) is stark—Nelson sees oversold conditions, but Graham and Lynch dismiss it as neither cheap enough nor growth-driven. Even moderate scorers like Marks (cycle) and Loeb (54) sit in the middle, hinting at a stock that’s neither a slam dunk nor a clear misfit, while Veblen’s low score (21) implies speculative overreach. The efficient-market camp (Bogle/Malkiel) and Lynch’s growth-at-a-reasonable-price filter further underscore the lack of consensus, with only a few methodologies (like Bagehot’s liquidity focus) offering cautious optimism.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 93
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 78
Strong liquidity — would likely survive a real credit squeeze
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 65
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 63
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
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)
🟡 61
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)
🟡 59
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 54
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 53
Solid, but not the exceptional quality Fisher looked for
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 45
Mixed — doesn't clearly pass Graham's tests
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 45
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 44
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 40
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)
🔴 34
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 21
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 10
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
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 · 10 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
78.9%
Operating Margin
-2.2%
Net Margin
0.2%
EBITDA Margin
5.9%
ROE
0.1%
ROA
0.1%
ROIC
—
EPS
$0.02
Cash
$1.63B
Total Debt
$993.00M
Current Ratio
2.84
Debt/Equity
0.12
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$29.09
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$7.49
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-74.2%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
14.2%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 14.2% | $140.47M | $128.87M |
| 2 | 11.3% | $156.31M | $131.57M |
| 3 | 8.4% | $169.37M | $130.79M |
| 4 | 5.4% | $178.56M | $126.50M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $183.02M | $118.95M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$123.00M
Terminal Value
$2.89B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$1.88B
Enterprise Value
$2.51B
Net Debt
$-640.00M
Equity Value
$3.15B
*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
$19.81
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$3.85
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 11 positive, 6 neutral, 3 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 13.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Business Wire · 10.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 10.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 10.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
Business Wire · 8.9.2026
Business Wire · 8.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 7.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
CoStar Group (CSGP) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 41/100, rated "Weak". The score is a weighted average across up to 7 categories (technical, fundamental, growth, fair value, news, quality, risk), based on real data only.
CSGP currently scores 41/100 (Weak) 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, CSGP's estimated fair value is $7.49, which is 74.2% below the current price of $29.09. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
CSGP's technical score is 13/100, 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: Free cash flow growth: 166.1%; Debt/equity: 0.12; Current ratio: 2.84.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $7.49 vs. price $29.09 (-74.2%); Operating margin: -2.2% (negative); Operating margin is eroding over time.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for CSGP.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 2 purchases and 2 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cann Cynthia Cammett | Open Market Sale | 7.8.2026 | 4,788 | -4,788 | $30.78 |
| Hill John W | Open Market Sale | 5.8.2026 | 3,500 | -3,500 | $30.21 |
| FLORANCE ANDREW C | Open Market Purchase | 4.8.2026 | 83,300 | +83,300 | $29.89 |
| FLORANCE ANDREW C | Open Market Purchase | 4.8.2026 | 1,806,165 | +83,300 | $29.89 |
| Cann Cynthia Cammett | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.8.2026 | 1,077 | -1,077 | $28.76 |
| SAINT FREDERICK G. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.8.2026 | 1,436 | -1,436 | $28.76 |
| Cann Cynthia Cammett | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.8.2026 | 23,610 | -1,077 | $28.76 |
| SAINT FREDERICK G. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.8.2026 | 278,415 | -1,436 | $28.76 |
| Rossmann Robin Jack | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.7.2026 | 34,771 | +34,771 | — |
| Cann Cynthia Cammett | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.7.2026 | 26,078 | +26,078 | — |
| Cann Cynthia Cammett | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.7.2026 | 26,078 | +26,078 | — |
| Rossmann Robin Jack | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.7.2026 | 34,771 | +34,771 | — |
| LOWN CHRISTIAN M. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.7.2026 | 5,597 | -5,597 | $29.36 |
| LOWN CHRISTIAN M. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.7.2026 | 129,653 | -5,597 | $29.36 |
| Glaser Rachel C | Grant/Award from Employer | 23.6.2026 | 8,262 | +8,262 | — |
| McCarthy Christine M | Grant/Award from Employer | 23.6.2026 | 8,262 | +8,262 | — |
| Brunner Angelique G. | Grant/Award from Employer | 23.6.2026 | 8,262 | +8,262 | — |
| Musslewhite Robert W | Grant/Award from Employer | 23.6.2026 | 8,262 | +8,262 | — |
| Hill John W | Grant/Award from Employer | 23.6.2026 | 8,262 | +8,262 | — |
| Sams Louise S | Grant/Award from Employer | 23.6.2026 | 8,262 | +8,262 | — |
| BERISFORD JOHN L | Grant/Award from Employer | 23.6.2026 | 8,262 | +8,262 | — |
| Hill John W | Grant/Award from Employer | 23.6.2026 | 26,493 | +8,262 | — |
| Musslewhite Robert W | Grant/Award from Employer | 23.6.2026 | 26,539 | +8,262 | — |
| BERISFORD JOHN L | Grant/Award from Employer | 23.6.2026 | 11,235 | +8,262 | — |
| Glaser Rachel C | Grant/Award from Employer | 23.6.2026 | 12,419 | +8,262 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
18,901,758 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 16,312,412 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
46.3% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 48.2% 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