Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$91.72
▼ $2.77 (-2.9%)
Market data updated: 09/17 03:06 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/16/2026
News analyzed: 09/17/2026
Market Cap
$117.31B
Day Range
$91.44 - $94.95
52-Week Range
$69.51 - $110.68
Beta
—
Next Earnings
27.10.2026
CVS 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.
+25.9% (1Y)
Strengths: 8/31 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
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $115.50 vs. price $91.72 (+25.9%)
Fair Value
Biggest negative driver
Operating margin stability
Operating margin is eroding over time
Quality
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
81/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
90/100
Analog Quality
-0.1%
Median 40D Outcome
47/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
47%
+2.5% … +6.4%
🟡 Base
13%
+0.5% … +0.8%
🔴 Bearish
40%
-20.0% … -4.0%
📌 Bottom line: Out of 15 similar historical cases for this stock, 47% (95% CI 25%–70%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of +0.9%.
Echo #1 — Trend Acceleration
3 occurrence(s) · 33% historical success
Echo #2 — Oversold Reversal
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 | 27% (11%–52%) | -1.4% | -5.0% … +1.3% | +0.1% |
| 10D | 47% (25%–70%) | -0.5% | -7.1% … +3.0% | +0.4% |
| 20D | 47% (25%–70%) | +0.9% | -4.9% … +2.8% | +0.4% |
| 40D | 47% (25%–70%) | -0.1% | -9.5% … +10.7% | +0.2% |
| 60D | 47% (25%–70%) | -6.1% | -8.0% … +12.0% | +1.1% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-02-24 | 81/100 | Downtrend | -14.6% | -19.1% |
| 2020-02-24 | 81/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -21.8% | -6.3% |
| 2026-03-16 | 80/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +2.3% | +29.2% |
| 2022-04-22 | 80/100 | Consolidation | -6.6% | -6.4% |
| 2020-10-27 | 80/100 | Downtrend | +17.7% | +25.9% |
| 2022-06-08 | 79/100 | Downtrend | +0.3% | +5.9% |
| 2024-03-01 | 79/100 | Consolidation | +7.7% | -27.4% |
| 2020-09-25 | 79/100 | Downtrend | +5.1% | +19.9% |
| 2025-07-10 | 78/100 | Consolidation | -3.1% | +18.1% |
| 2017-07-12 | 77/100 | Consolidation | +2.6% | +4.5% |
| 2020-07-24 | 76/100 | Downtrend | +0.9% | -7.2% |
| 2022-03-30 | 75/100 | Consolidation | -2.6% | -8.7% |
| 2024-04-09 | 75/100 | Consolidation | -24.0% | -22.8% |
| 2025-12-18 | 74/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +3.0% | -6.1% |
| 2025-11-20 | 73/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +2.2% | +1.7% |
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
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.
🧬 STOCK DNA
This stock's profile across 8 real dimensions — a research tool, not a recommendation
Growth
48
Quality
47
Value
57
Momentum
29
Risk
40
Sentiment
62
Fundamental
45
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING CVS...
Recent media coverage of CVS Health has centered on its efforts to improve profitability, particularly through Aetna’s financial turnaround, driven by stronger healthcare benefits and operational improvements. The company has also expanded access to updated COVID-19 vaccines nationwide, integrating them with other immunizations to simplify patient visits. Additionally, discussions highlight CVS’s stock performance—noted for a 65% return over three years—though valuation debates persist, with analysts weighing mixed signals around its insurance operations and compliance. Price targets and dividend stability have also sparked investor interest.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about CVS Health. News trend score: 62. Reason: 8 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 6 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
8
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
37
Psychology
96
Fundamentals
45
Technical
29
Valuation
57
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
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 stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price (3M)
-6%
Market Narrative
36
Fundamental Reality
37
Narrative Gap
-1
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
CVS’s psychology suggests a mixed but anchored mindset, where traders may be fixated on recent support (3.6% above) while ignoring the stock’s 17% discount to DCF. Herding behavior is muted, as today’s underperformance relative to peers implies selective positioning rather than blind following. The narrative gap (15 points) hints at a disconnect between optimistic sentiment (92/100) and valuation realities, potentially fueling overconfidence in momentum over fundamentals. The dominant psychological tension lies in anchoring to support versus the disconnect between price and intrinsic value, leaving the key question: *Will traders prioritize technical proximity or fundamental mispricing?*
Updated: 09/09/2026, 04:50 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"CVS Health is advancing Aetna's profitability turnaround, supported by stronger Health Care Benefits results"
"updated 2026-2027 COVID-19 vaccines are now available... integrating COVID-19 shots with other vaccinations"
"CVS Health stock has delivered a strong 64.8% return... fresh buyers now have to judge whether that past performance still..."
"The Shingles Vaccine Is $0 at the Pharmacy. Get the same shot at Your Doctor’s Office and the Front Desk Asks for $200 Per Dose."
📈 10D 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 — 94/100
🔴 Weakest match
Thorstein Veblen — 12/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for CVS reflects deep philosophical splits between methodologies. Morgan Housel’s near-perfect score highlights his focus on patient, long-term compounding—where CVS’s stability and steady growth align with his principles. Meanwhile, Benjamin Graham’s low scores underscore his strict valuation discipline, dismissing CVS as too expensive even for his more aggressive *Enterprising Investor* framework. The middle-ground approaches—like Howard Marks’ caution or Philip Fisher’s lack of quality/growth signals—suggest CVS lacks the standout traits needed for aggressive growth strategies but isn’t outright risky. Veblen’s low score, however, hints at a speculative undertone, while Charles Mackay’s neutral stance implies it avoids crowd-driven euphoria. The contrast between Housel’s enthusiasm and Graham’s skepticism reveals whether one prioritizes durability over valuation or vice versa.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 94
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)
🟢 88
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟢 81
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 71
Risk appears reasonably priced — no obvious cycle-timing red flag
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 69
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 64
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)
🟡 62
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 59
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 50
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 46
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)
🟡 40
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
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?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 34
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 30
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
🔴 13
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
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
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 · 9 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.
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
45.0%
Operating Margin
1.2%
Net Margin
0.4%
EBITDA Margin
2.3%
ROE
2.4%
ROA
0.7%
ROIC
—
EPS
$1.40
Cash
$8.45B
Total Debt
$0
Current Ratio
0.84
Debt/Equity
0.00
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 23.7.2026 | $0.665 |
| 22.7.2026 | $0.665 |
| 23.4.2026 | $0.665 |
| 22.4.2026 | $0.665 |
| 22.1.2026 | $0.665 |
| 21.1.2026 | $0.665 |
| 23.10.2025 | $0.665 |
| 22.10.2025 | $0.665 |
| 22.7.2025 | $0.665 |
| 21.7.2025 | $0.665 |
| 22.4.2025 | $0.665 |
| 21.4.2025 | $0.665 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$91.72
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$115.50
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
+25.9%
🟢 Appears cheap relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
7.7%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 7.7% | $8.41B | $7.71B |
| 2 | 6.4% | $8.94B | $7.53B |
| 3 | 5.1% | $9.40B | $7.26B |
| 4 | 3.8% | $9.75B | $6.91B |
| 5 | 2.5% | $10.00B | $6.50B |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$7.81B
Terminal Value
$157.63B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$102.45B
Enterprise Value
$138.35B
Net Debt
$-8.45B
Equity Value
$146.80B
*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
$59.18
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$28.14
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 8 positive, 6 neutral, 6 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
ACCESS Newswire · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Business Wire · 15.9.2026
WSJ · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
WSJ · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Trefis · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
WSJ · 14.9.2026
CVS Health (CVS) 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.
CVS 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, CVS's estimated fair value is $115.50, which is 25.9% above the current price of $91.72. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
CVS's technical score is 29/100, 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: Estimated fair value: $115.50 vs. price $91.72 (+25.9%); Free cash flow growth: 23.4%; Debt/equity: 0.00.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Operating margin is eroding over time; Current ratio: 0.84; Calmar: 0.20 (3y annualized return 9.4% / max drawdown 46.2%).
Yes — CVS 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 16 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clark James David | Tax Withholding in Shares | 26.6.2026 | 454 | -454 | $90.98 |
| Compton-Phillips Amy | Tax Withholding in Shares | 31.5.2026 | 7,618 | -7,618 | $90.98 |
| Newman Brian | Tax Withholding in Shares | 31.5.2026 | 2,478 | -2,478 | $90.98 |
| Compton-Phillips Amy | Tax Withholding in Shares | 31.5.2026 | 9,557 | -7,618 | $90.98 |
| Newman Brian | Tax Withholding in Shares | 31.5.2026 | 3,008 | -2,478 | $90.98 |
| ROBBINS LARRY | Open Market Sale | 21.5.2026 | 378,000 | -378,000 | $93.31 |
| AGUIRRE FERNANDO | Disposition to the Company | 21.5.2026 | 1,563 | -1,563 | $93.50 |
| ROBBINS LARRY | Open Market Sale | 21.5.2026 | 370,462 | -370,462 | $93.45 |
| ROBBINS LARRY | Open Market Sale | 21.5.2026 | 4,824,799 | -370,462 | $93.45 |
| ROBBINS LARRY | Open Market Sale | 21.5.2026 | 0 | -378,000 | $93.31 |
| AGUIRRE FERNANDO | Disposition to the Company | 21.5.2026 | 10,513 | -1,563 | $93.50 |
| ROBBINS LARRY | Open Market Sale | 20.5.2026 | 797,628 | -797,628 | $93.48 |
| AGUIRRE FERNANDO | Disposition to the Company | 20.5.2026 | 30,437 | -30,437 | $93.78 |
| ROBBINS LARRY | Open Market Sale | 20.5.2026 | 800 | -800 | $96.28 |
| ROBBINS LARRY | Open Market Sale | 20.5.2026 | 66,881 | -66,881 | $95.67 |
| ROBBINS LARRY | Open Market Sale | 20.5.2026 | 152,691 | -152,691 | $94.81 |
| ROBBINS LARRY | Open Market Sale | 20.5.2026 | 5,415,633 | -797,628 | $93.48 |
| ROBBINS LARRY | Open Market Sale | 20.5.2026 | 5,262,942 | -152,691 | $94.81 |
| ROBBINS LARRY | Open Market Sale | 20.5.2026 | 5,196,061 | -66,881 | $95.67 |
| ROBBINS LARRY | Open Market Sale | 20.5.2026 | 5,195,261 | -800 | $96.28 |
| AGUIRRE FERNANDO | Disposition to the Company | 20.5.2026 | 12,076 | -30,437 | $93.78 |
| ROBBINS LARRY | Open Market Sale | 19.5.2026 | 151 | -151 | $95.18 |
| ROBBINS LARRY | Open Market Sale | 19.5.2026 | 1,983,387 | -1,983,387 | $94.45 |
| ROBBINS LARRY | Open Market Sale | 19.5.2026 | 6,213,412 | -1,983,387 | $94.45 |
| ROBBINS LARRY | Open Market Sale | 19.5.2026 | 6,213,261 | -151 | $95.18 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
18,114,651 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 18,676,470 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
31.0% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 42.6% 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