Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Technology · ·
$178.12
▲ $2.44 (+1.4%)
Market data updated: 09/19 08:28 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
$6.42B
Day Range
$173.07 - $178.12
52-Week Range
$108.19 - $244.30
Beta
—
Next Earnings
03.11.2026
Support
$168.72
Resistance
$217.00
ENS is a stock from the Technology sector — Software, hardware, chip, and computing-services companies — revenue tied to the pace of innovation and upgrade cycles.
+59.9% (1Y)
Strengths: 5/30 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
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Free cash flow growth
Free cash flow growth: 235.7%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
Earnings per share (EPS) growth
Earnings per share (EPS) growth: -14.3%
Growth
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
NO RELIABLE ECHO FOUND
Only 3 historical analog(s) found after removing overlapping dates — too few for a statistically meaningful comparison.
Historical matches considered: 3
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
54
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
50
Momentum
29
Risk
56
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
65
Institutional
No data available
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
Not enough comparably-scored stocks yet to show similar matches.
This stock hasn't been analyzed by StockIQAI's movement engine yet — coverage is still expanding. Check back soon.
The recent media coverage on EnerSys (ENS) has primarily focused on its valuation and growth potential as a **growth-at-a-reasonable-price (GARP) stock**, highlighting strong earnings growth (18.7% EPS increase) and a favorable PEG ratio (0.79). Analysts also compared ENS to competitors like ABB and Keyence, assessing its performance relative to peers in the industrial sector. No direct company-specific news about EnerSys itself was provided—only indirect references in broader stock comparisons and investment analyses.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about EnerSys. News trend score: 100. Reason: 10 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
16
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
40
Psychology
37
Fundamentals
65
Technical
29
Valuation
50
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.
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.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Price (3M)
-22%
Market Narrative
61
Fundamental Reality
40
Narrative Gap
+21
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior for ENS is overwhelmingly consistent with **loss aversion**, as evidenced by the steep 3-month decline (-19.9%) and elevated trading volume (1.14x). Investors appear fixated on recent downside, anchoring near support (3.4% above) while avoiding further losses. The narrative gap (13 points) hints at a disconnect between positive sentiment (92/100) and observable price weakness, reinforcing caution. The key question is whether the stock can stabilize above support or if further selling will deepen loss aversion. Neutral RSI (40) and moderate volatility (0.86x ATR) suggest no extreme panic, but the dominant psychological state remains rooted in risk aversion.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 04:57 AM
What could change this?
📈 11D 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 — 80/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jesse Livermore — 23/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock’s divergent scores reflect stark contrasts between cyclical, fundamental, and contrarian perspectives. Samuel Armstrong Nelson’s high score suggests the stock is near a cyclical trough, while Walter Bagehot and Charles Mackay’s mid-range ratings imply solid liquidity and no speculative frenzy—but neither is overwhelmingly bullish. In contrast, Howard Marks (Market Cycle) and Edgar Lawrence Smith see it as a long-term hold, though Marks’ caution hints at already elevated expectations, while Smith’s enthusiasm leans toward a decade-long buy-and-hold thesis. Meanwhile, Philip Fisher and Gerald Loeb’s lukewarm scores signal mediocre quality or risk, while the efficient-market camp and Benjamin Graham’s strict criteria dismiss it outright, questioning its value over passive indexing or defensive investing. Jesse Livermore’s extreme low score stands out as an outlier, flagging a downtrend that clashes with the more neutral or cautiously positive views of the rest.
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 80
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)
🟢 78
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 67
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 66
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 66
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 60
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 57
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 55
Solid, but not the exceptional quality Fisher looked for
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 48
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 40
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 35
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 32
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
🔴 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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 23
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 281 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (1 bullish · 6 bearish · 3 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.
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
29.3%
Operating Margin
11.4%
Net Margin
7.8%
EBITDA Margin
14.4%
ROE
15.4%
ROA
7.3%
ROIC
—
EPS
$7.84
Cash
$438.68M
Total Debt
$1.11B
Current Ratio
2.66
Debt/Equity
0.58
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 18.6.2026 | $0.263 |
| 17.6.2026 | $0.263 |
| 13.3.2026 | $0.263 |
| 12.3.2026 | $0.263 |
| 12.12.2025 | $0.263 |
| 11.12.2025 | $0.263 |
| 12.9.2025 | $0.263 |
| 11.9.2025 | $0.263 |
| 13.6.2025 | $0.240 |
| 12.6.2025 | $0.240 |
| 14.3.2025 | $0.240 |
| 13.3.2025 | $0.240 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$178.12
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$166.65
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-6.4%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
0.4%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.4% | $469.51M | $430.75M |
| 2 | 0.9% | $473.95M | $398.91M |
| 3 | 1.5% | $480.88M | $371.33M |
| 4 | 2.0% | $490.41M | $347.42M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $502.67M | $326.70M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$467.52M
Terminal Value
$7.93B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$5.15B
Enterprise Value
$7.03B
Net Debt
$670.31M
Equity Value
$6.36B
*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
$49.95
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$21.23
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 10 positive, 9 neutral, 1 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Benzinga · 15.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
Zacks · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
Zacks · 8.9.2026
Zacks · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
ChartMill · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 2.9.2026
Zacks · 2.9.2026
Yahoo · 2.9.2026
Zacks · 2.9.2026
Yahoo · 2.9.2026
EnerSys (ENS) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 54/100, 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.
ENS currently scores 54/100 (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, ENS's estimated fair value is $166.65, which is 6.4% below the current price of $178.12. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
ENS'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: Free cash flow growth: 235.7%; Operating margin is stable or improving over time; Current ratio: 2.66.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Earnings per share (EPS) growth: -14.3%; Net income growth: -19.3%; Price is below the 50-day average.
Yes — ENS 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 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vargo Ronald P | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.8.2026 | 982 | +982 | — |
| Morytko Tamara | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.8.2026 | 982 | +982 | — |
| TUFANO PAUL J | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.8.2026 | 1,428 | +1,428 | — |
| Knausenberger Lauren | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.8.2026 | 982 | +982 | — |
| Wynter Rudolph W. | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.8.2026 | 982 | +982 | — |
| HOFFEN HOWARD I | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.8.2026 | 982 | +982 | — |
| FLUDDER STEVEN M | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.8.2026 | 982 | +982 | — |
| Fisher Keith D. | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.8.2026 | 3,196 | +3,196 | — |
| Fisher Keith D. | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.8.2026 | 3,196 | +3,196 | — |
| Matthews Mark E. | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.8.2026 | 3,196 | +3,196 | — |
| Uplinger Chad C | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.8.2026 | 3,196 | +3,196 | — |
| O'Connell Shawn M. | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.8.2026 | 17,207 | +17,207 | — |
| Habiger David C | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.8.2026 | 982 | +982 | — |
| Funk Andrea J. | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.8.2026 | 6,391 | +6,391 | — |
| O'Connell Shawn M. | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.8.2026 | 17,207 | +17,207 | — |
| Funk Andrea J. | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.8.2026 | 6,391 | +6,391 | — |
| Chan Caroline | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.8.2026 | 982 | +982 | — |
| Uplinger Chad C | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.8.2026 | 3,196 | +3,196 | — |
| Matthews Mark E. | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.8.2026 | 3,196 | +3,196 | — |
| Uplinger Chad C | Tax Withholding in Shares | 12.8.2026 | 437 | -437 | $186.21 |
| O'Connell Shawn M. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 12.8.2026 | 66,798 | -795 | $186.21 |
| Funk Andrea J. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 12.8.2026 | 52,689 | -996 | $186.21 |
| Uplinger Chad C | Tax Withholding in Shares | 12.8.2026 | 21,882 | -437 | $186.21 |
| Matthews Mark E. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 12.8.2026 | 19,019 | -531 | $186.21 |
| Uplinger Chad C | Tax Withholding in Shares | 11.8.2026 | 289 | -289 | $186.30 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
2,173,042 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 2,095,942 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
62.1% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 55.1% 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