Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Energy · ·
229.00 ₪
▲ 0.00 ₪ (+0.0%)
Market data updated: 09/19 01:33 PM
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
217.80 ₪ - 230.40 ₪
52-Week Range
91.01 ₪ - 317.50 ₪
Beta
—
Next Earnings
—
Support
211.30 ₪
Resistance
285.40 ₪
ENLT.TA is a stock from the Energy sector — Oil, gas, and renewable energy — highly volatile profitability, dependent on global commodity prices.
+168.5% (1Y)
🔴 Weak
Strengths: 3/12 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
🔴 Bearish
Technical Trend
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Price vs. SMA 200
Price is above the 200-day average
Technical
Biggest negative driver
Daily volatility (ATR)
ATR: 4.2% of price
Risk
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
NO RELIABLE ECHO FOUND
Only 0 historical analog(s) found after removing overlapping dates — too few for a statistically meaningful comparison.
Historical matches considered: 0
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.
ENLT.TA’s overall investor score of 29, classified as **WEAK**, reflects a pronounced technical weakness and elevated risk profile despite a modest news sentiment score. The technical category (score: 17) is heavily weighted down by persistent underperformance relative to both the 50-day and 200-day moving averages, alongside a negative MACD histogram signaling declining momentum. The RSI (45.4) and %K (53.2) further reinforce a neutral-to-bearish bias, while the -7.7% relative underperformance over the last three months underscores a lagging trend. Though the Calmar ratio (2.16) suggests a historically high risk-adjusted return (55.8% annualized over three years with a 25.9% max drawdown), the ATR (4.8% of price) indicates volatility that could amplify downside pressure. Meanwhile, the news category (score: 50) lacks explicit evidence, leaving sentiment neutral but uninformative. Risk (score: 50) is balanced by the Calmar ratio’s strength but tempered by the ATR’s volatility, which could deter risk-averse investors.
The stock is trading below both the 50-day and 200-day moving averages, with a negative MACD histogram and RSI of 45.4 indicating weak momentum and a bearish bias. Relative performance has declined -7.7% over the last three months compared to the index.
These technical signals collectively suggest a short-term downward pressure, which could discourage speculative buying and reinforce a cautious trading environment.
No explicit news or sentiment data is provided, resulting in a neutral score of 50 with no positive or negative indicators.
The absence of news-driven catalysts means the stock’s valuation is primarily driven by technical and risk factors rather than external developments.
The ATR (4.8% of price) highlights significant volatility, while the Calmar ratio (2.16) indicates a historically high risk-adjusted return despite a 25.9% max drawdown over three years.
The volatility could exacerbate downside risk, while the Calmar ratio suggests the stock has delivered strong returns relative to its drawdowns in the past, though this may not guarantee future stability.
StockIQ conclusion
ENLT.TA’s weak investor score reflects a combination of technical headwinds, elevated volatility, and a lack of clear positive catalysts. While the stock has delivered strong risk-adjusted returns historically, its current underperformance relative to key moving averages and negative momentum indicators create a cautious outlook. The absence of news-driven sentiment leaves the stock’s future dependent on technical shifts or external developments, which remain uncertain. Investors should closely monitor volatility and moving average trends for potential turning points.
Written automatically from the computed data shown on this page only — not investment advice.
🗓️ 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
43
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
No data available
Quality
No data available
Value
No data available
Momentum
40
Risk
42
Sentiment
50
Fundamental
No data available
Institutional
No data available
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
Not enough comparably-scored stocks yet to show similar matches.
SCANNING ENLT.TA...
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
3
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
50
Fundamentals
—
Technical
40
Valuation
—
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
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.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
Price (3M)
-11%
Market Narrative
44
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
-6
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior here suggests a **herding dynamic**—participants appear to be exiting in lockstep with peers, though the stock’s sharper decline hints at selective underperformance. Elevated volume (1.43x) and a 3-month drawdown (-14.6%) also point to **loss aversion**, where investors hesitate to crystallize further losses. The narrative gap (-7) implies a disconnect between market sentiment (optimistic) and reality (weaker fundamentals or performance), which may reinforce cautious herding. The key question: *Is this coordinated selling a reaction to sector-wide weakness, or is it a self-fulfilling downward spiral?*
Updated: 09/08/2026, 10:38 AM
What could change this?
📈 9D Investor Psychology
Signal classification confidence: Medium (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
Charles Mackay — 95/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide among methodologies, with some investors seeing disciplined opportunities while others flag severe risks. The highest-scoring approaches—Charles Mackay’s crowd-behavior analysis (100) and Jack Schwager’s structured setup (89)—suggest it’s a low-mania, high-reward scenario, aligning with systematic or trend-following logic. Meanwhile, Howard Marks’ two variants (76 and 73) lean cautiously bullish, viewing it as mid-cycle without overvaluation, though still cautious. In contrast, the bottom tier—from Jesse Livermore’s trend-defying verdict (35) to Morgan Housel’s volatility-driven rejection (0)—warns of structural weaknesses, with Livermore’s bearishness and Housel’s patient-investor skepticism framing it as a high-risk trap. The middle ground (Nelson’s neutral 60) and the near-unanimous ‘not enough data’ verdicts (Graham, Fisher, Lynch, etc.) highlight a lack of clear fundamentals, leaving only behavioral and cyclical frameworks to debate its merits.
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 95
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 69
Looks early-to-mid cycle, not overextended
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)
🟢 66
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
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 55
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 53
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 50
Not enough balance-sheet/valuation data for a real Graham read
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 50
Not enough fundamentals data for a real Fisher read
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 50
Not enough growth data for a real Lynch read
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 50
Not enough balance-sheet data for a real Bagehot read
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 50
Not enough growth/insider data for a real Veblen read
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 50
Not enough valuation data for a real Enterprising-Graham read
Key question
Is the stock statistically cheap enough to justify the extra risk?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 34
Weak case — Malkiel/Bogle would say a low-cost index is the simpler bet
Key question
Do I actually have an edge here, or do I just think I do?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 29
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🔴 15
Not enough dividend/growth data for a real Smith read
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 25%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 0
The kind of volatility that tends to shake patient holders out
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 30%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 255 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (3 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 downtrend 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.
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 0 positive, 0 neutral, 0 negative out of the last 0 articles.
No recent articles found for this stock.
StockIQ doesn't currently have enough real data to compute a reliable score for Enlight Renewable Energy Ltd (ENLT.TA) — only 3 of 7 categories are available right now. Rather than show a misleading number, this page shows which data is missing instead.
StockIQ doesn't give buy/sell recommendations — and for ENLT.TA specifically, there currently isn't enough real data (only 3 of 7 categories available) to state even a factual score reliably. Check back once more data is available.
ENLT.TA's technical score is 40/100, 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: Price is above the 200-day average; MACD histogram is positive — rising momentum; CMF 20 days: 0.19.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: ATR: 4.2% of price; Price is below the 50-day average; -10.2% over the last 3 months relative to the index.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for ENLT.TA.
Full breakdown of every data type and its source: Data Sources · Methodology