Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Technology · ·
$26.11
▼ $0.46 (-1.7%)
Market data updated: 09/20 01:03 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
$25.95 - $26.86
52-Week Range
$17.15 - $76.51
Beta
—
Next Earnings
04.11.2026
Support
$19.88
Resistance
$40.00
DOCS is a stock from the Technology sector — Software, hardware, chip, and computing-services companies — revenue tied to the pace of innovation and upgrade cycles.
-64.5% (1Y)
Strengths: 16/28 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
🟡 Mixed
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $34.43 vs. price $26.11 (+31.9%)
Fair Value
Biggest negative driver
Daily volatility (ATR)
ATR: 4.7% of price
Risk
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
NO RELIABLE ECHO FOUND
Only 2 historical analog(s) found after removing overlapping dates — too few for a statistically meaningful comparison.
Historical matches considered: 2
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
63
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
58
Value
62
Momentum
52
Risk
40
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
79
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
This stock hasn't been analyzed by StockIQAI's movement engine yet — coverage is still expanding. Check back soon.
Recent media coverage of Doximity, Inc. highlights its strong financial fundamentals, including a 125% return on invested capital and no debt, positioning it as a quality investment. The company’s stock saw a price target increase of 12.72% amid broader enterprise software growth, driven by AI adoption. Notably, Doximity’s platform is gaining traction as physicians increasingly view AI as a tool to boost compensation and competitive earnings, though its stock performance has lagged the S&P 500 in recent months.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Doximity, Inc.. News trend score: 100. Reason: 13 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
18
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
40
Psychology
20
Fundamentals
79
Technical
52
Valuation
62
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
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.
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 (3M)
+28%
Market Narrative
51
Fundamental Reality
40
Narrative Gap
+11
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
DOCS’s psychology is dominated by **euphoria**, as momentum, sentiment, and valuation metrics align with irrational exuberance despite the stock trading 29% below fair value. The narrative gap (14 points) suggests traders may be overestimating growth potential relative to fundamentals. Overconfidence is muted, implying traders acknowledge some disconnect but remain optimistic. The key question: *Will traders sustain euphoria or pivot when valuation gaps widen further?*
Updated: 09/09/2026, 04:53 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"downgrades Doximity to Hold from Buy"
"price target increased by 12.72% to 30.32"
"Shares Skyrocket... artificial intelligence is driving growth"
"3 Reasons to Avoid DOCS"
📈 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
Walter Bagehot — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor) — 31/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock’s starkly divided verdicts reflect deep methodological contrasts—from bullish liquidity-focused views to outright cautionary flags. Walter Bagehot’s near-perfect score highlights the company’s resilience in a credit crunch, prioritizing stability over growth, while Philip Fisher and Jack Schwager see disciplined, high-reward potential, though neither would call it exceptional. On the opposite end, the lowest scores—from Samuel Armstrong Nelson’s overbought cycle warning to Benjamin Graham’s outright rejection—stem from strict valuation or defensive criteria, where the stock fails to meet statistical or intrinsic-value thresholds. Meanwhile, market-efficiency skeptics like Howard Marks and Peter Lynch temper optimism with concerns about inflated expectations or lackluster growth, illustrating a tension between opportunistic setups and structural risks.
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 100
Strong liquidity — would likely survive a real credit squeeze
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 78
A real, disciplined setup with favorable reward/risk
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 74
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟢 73
Solid, but not the exceptional quality Fisher looked for
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 63
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)
🟡 62
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 52
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 45
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 40
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 39
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 36
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 36
Cycle looks stretched toward overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 35
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 32
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 31
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 280 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟡 Indicators are mixed — no clear bias (5 bullish · 5 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.
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
89.1%
Operating Margin
33.3%
Net Margin
30.4%
EBITDA Margin
35.6%
ROE
20.6%
ROA
17.4%
ROIC
—
EPS
$1.05
Cash
$219.18M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
6.09
Debt/Equity
—
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$26.11
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$34.43
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
+31.9%
🟢 Appears cheap relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
15.5%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 15.5% | $377.04M | $345.91M |
| 2 | 12.2% | $423.21M | $356.21M |
| 3 | 9.0% | $461.29M | $356.20M |
| 4 | 5.7% | $487.81M | $345.58M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $500.01M | $324.97M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$326.46M
Terminal Value
$7.88B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$5.12B
Enterprise Value
$6.85B
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$6.85B
*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
$4.78
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$4.17
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 13 positive, 6 neutral, 1 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Fintel · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
The Fly · 8.9.2026
Benzinga · 8.9.2026
ChartMill · 2.9.2026
Yahoo · 1.9.2026
StockStory · 1.9.2026
Yahoo · 28.8.2026
Fintel · 28.8.2026
StockStory · 28.8.2026
Yahoo · 27.8.2026
StockStory · 27.8.2026
Yahoo · 25.8.2026
Business Wire · 25.8.2026
Yahoo · 24.8.2026
Zacks · 24.8.2026
Doximity, Inc. (DOCS) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 63/100, 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.
DOCS currently scores 63/100 (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, DOCS's estimated fair value is $34.43, which is 31.9% above the current price of $26.11. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
DOCS's technical score is 52/100, 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: Estimated fair value: $34.43 vs. price $26.11 (+31.9%); Operating margin is stable or improving over time; Return on equity (ROE): 20.6% — strong.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: ATR: 4.7% of price; Calmar: 0.11 (3y annualized return 8.6% / max drawdown 78.3%); Earnings per share (EPS) growth: -11.7%.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for DOCS.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 3 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wampler Kira Scherer | Conversion of Derivative Security | 1.9.2026 | 2,000 | +2,000 | — |
| Wampler Kira Scherer | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 2,000 | +2,000 | — |
| Wampler Kira Scherer | Conversion of Derivative Security | 1.9.2026 | 2,000 | -2,000 | — |
| Wampler Kira Scherer | Open Market Sale | 1.9.2026 | 2,000 | -2,000 | $26.33 |
| Wampler Kira Scherer | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 2,000 | -2,000 | — |
| Yang Watkin Phoebe L. | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.8.2026 | 26,034 | +8,084 | — |
| Wampler Kira Scherer | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.8.2026 | 27,923 | +8,084 | — |
| Benjamin Regina M. | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.8.2026 | 58,987 | +8,084 | — |
| Spain Kevin | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.8.2026 | 11,305 | +8,084 | — |
| Cabral Timothy S | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.8.2026 | 11,305 | +8,084 | — |
| Yang Watkin Phoebe L. | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.8.2026 | 8,084 | +8,084 | — |
| Wampler Kira Scherer | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.8.2026 | 8,084 | +8,084 | — |
| Spain Kevin | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.8.2026 | 8,084 | +8,084 | — |
| Cabral Timothy S | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.8.2026 | 8,084 | +8,084 | — |
| Benjamin Regina M. | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.8.2026 | 8,084 | +8,084 | — |
| Wampler Kira Scherer | Open Market Sale | 25.8.2026 | 19,839 | -2,000 | $24.95 |
| Wampler Kira Scherer | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 25.8.2026 | 445,700 | -2,000 | — |
| Wampler Kira Scherer | Conversion of Derivative Security | 25.8.2026 | 0 | -2,000 | — |
| Wampler Kira Scherer | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 25.8.2026 | 2,000 | +2,000 | — |
| Wampler Kira Scherer | Conversion of Derivative Security | 25.8.2026 | 21,839 | +2,000 | — |
| Wampler Kira Scherer | Open Market Sale | 25.8.2026 | 2,000 | -2,000 | $24.95 |
| Wampler Kira Scherer | Conversion of Derivative Security | 25.8.2026 | 2,000 | -2,000 | — |
| Wampler Kira Scherer | Conversion of Derivative Security | 25.8.2026 | 2,000 | +2,000 | — |
| Wampler Kira Scherer | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 25.8.2026 | 2,000 | -2,000 | — |
| Wampler Kira Scherer | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 25.8.2026 | 2,000 | +2,000 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
14,046,289 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 24,572,759 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
48.9% 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