Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Energy · ·
$50.00
▼ $0.35 (-0.7%)
Market data updated: 09/19 09:20 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
$49.95 - $50.52
52-Week Range
$47.94 - $68.24
Beta
—
Next Earnings
19.10.2026
Support
$47.94
Resistance
$56.52
EQT is a stock from the Energy sector — Oil, gas, and renewable energy — highly volatile profitability, dependent on global commodity prices.
+1.2% (1Y)
Strengths: 12/31 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: $75.00 vs. price $50.00 (+50.0%)
Fair Value
Biggest negative driver
Liquidity risk
Current ratio: 0.76
Risk
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
84/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
91/100
Analog Quality
-3.9%
Median 40D Outcome
64/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
33%
+3.7% … +11.2%
🟡 Base
0%
— … —
🔴 Bearish
67%
-5.7% … -3.6%
Typical timeframe (based on real historical rates clearing a 60% bar): 20 trading days.
📌 Bottom line: Out of 15 similar historical cases for this stock, 33% (95% CI 15%–58%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of -3.5%.
Echo #1 — Momentum Breakout
7 occurrence(s) · 71% 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 | 53% (30%–75%) | +1.2% | -1.1% … +4.3% | +0.1% |
| 10D | 47% (25%–70%) | +0.7% | -1.3% … +7.9% | +0.1% |
| 20D | 33% (15%–58%) | -3.5% | -5.1% … +3.1% | +0.2% |
| 40D | 40% (20%–64%) | -3.9% | -9.7% … +5.2% | +0.4% |
| 60D | 40% (20%–64%) | -2.2% | -8.7% … +6.8% | +0.5% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-06-11 | 84/100 | Downtrend | -2.9% | +7.7% |
| 2018-08-02 | 83/100 | Downtrend | +3.7% | -34.2% |
| 2024-06-21 | 82/100 | Downtrend | -3.5% | -10.0% |
| 2018-09-07 | 81/100 | Downtrend | -3.7% | -25.4% |
| 2024-07-26 | 81/100 | ✓ Downtrend | -2.0% | +6.0% |
| 2024-03-18 | 80/100 | Downtrend | +8.4% | +22.1% |
| 2023-09-21 | 79/100 | Consolidation | +11.2% | -0.8% |
| 2017-10-26 | 79/100 | Consolidation | -4.0% | -2.2% |
| 2018-02-01 | 79/100 | Downtrend | -5.6% | -5.9% |
| 2017-11-16 | 78/100 | Downtrend | -7.7% | -18.2% |
| 2024-02-14 | 78/100 | Downtrend | +2.5% | +18.1% |
| 2024-01-22 | 77/100 | Downtrend | -4.7% | +1.9% |
| 2026-01-15 | 76/100 | Downtrend | +17.6% | +13.6% |
| 2026-05-27 | 75/100 | Downtrend | -6.4% | -2.6% |
| 2026-05-12 | 74/100 | Consolidation | -5.7% | -7.3% |
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 XLE (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
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
82
Quality
63
Value
62
Momentum
10
Risk
40
Sentiment
92
Fundamental
60
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING EQT...
Recent media coverage on EQT Corporation focuses on its financial outlook, stock valuation, and expanding commercial operations. Wall Street analysts recently adjusted their price targets while maintaining
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about EQT Corporation. News trend score: 92. Reason: 7 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 0 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)
44
Psychology
35
Fundamentals
60
Technical
10
Valuation
62
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
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.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price (3M)
-1%
Market Narrative
37
Fundamental Reality
44
Narrative Gap
-7
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s dominant anchoring behavior suggests traders are fixating on the 2.5% gap below resistance, potentially limiting upside bids. Herding signals a relative underweight stance, while FOMO remains muted despite positive momentum metrics. The absence of overconfidence or panic highlights a cautious, anchor-bound environment. The key question is whether the stock can break resistance or if traders will hold firm at this psychological level.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 12:20 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"The completed combination with Coller Capital can support expectations for fee-based growth in private markets"
"EQT AB has repurchased 680,980 own ordinary shares"
"EQT’s shares have sunk to $54.63, producing a disappointing 11.4% loss"
📈 14D 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 — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jesse Livermore — 17/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock divides the historical methodologies sharply, with a clear divide between growth-oriented value hunters and more cautious or market-skeptical investors. Peter Lynch, Philip Fisher, and Edgar Lawrence Smith—all of whom prioritize long-term growth, quality, and undervaluation relative to potential—see EQT as a standout opportunity, scoring near the top and calling it a 'buy and hold' candidate. Their models emphasize earnings momentum, competitive advantage, and the idea that the stock hasn’t yet reflected its true value. In contrast, the more conservative or market-critical methodologies—like those of Benjamin Graham (both strict and enterprising versions), Walter Bagehot, and Jack Schwager—score it far lower, flagging issues like liquidity risk, stretched valuations, or a lack of clear technical setups. Even Howard Marks and Morgan Housel, who balance risk and patience, are more reserved, while the efficient-market camp dismisses the stock entirely, suggesting it doesn’t justify active picking over passive indexing.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 100
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 96
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟢 93
Exceptional company quality by Fisher's standards
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 93
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 80
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)
🟢 73
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟢 70
Attractive to a Defensive Graham Investor
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 67
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)
🟢 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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 60
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 57
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 52
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 45
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 29
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)
🔴 17
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
82.3%
Operating Margin
37.6%
Net Margin
23.6%
EBITDA Margin
67.7%
ROE
8.6%
ROA
4.9%
ROIC
—
EPS
$3.33
Cash
$110.80M
Total Debt
$7.80B
Current Ratio
0.76
Debt/Equity
0.33
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 5.8.2026 | $0.165 |
| 6.5.2026 | $0.165 |
| 5.5.2026 | $0.165 |
| 17.2.2026 | $0.165 |
| 16.2.2026 | $0.165 |
| 5.11.2025 | $0.165 |
| 4.11.2025 | $0.165 |
| 6.8.2025 | $0.158 |
| 5.8.2025 | $0.158 |
| 7.5.2025 | $0.158 |
| 6.5.2025 | $0.158 |
| 18.2.2025 | $0.158 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$50.00
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$75.00
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
+50.0%
🟢 Appears cheap relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
10.8%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 10.8% | $3.14B | $2.88B |
| 2 | 8.7% | $3.42B | $2.88B |
| 3 | 6.6% | $3.65B | $2.82B |
| 4 | 4.6% | $3.81B | $2.70B |
| 5 | 2.5% | $3.91B | $2.54B |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$2.84B
Terminal Value
$61.62B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$40.05B
Enterprise Value
$53.87B
Net Debt
$7.69B
Equity Value
$46.18B
*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
$38.58
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$34.90
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 7 positive, 13 neutral, 0 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Benzinga · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
MT Newswires · 15.9.2026
MT Newswires · 11.9.2026
ChartMill · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 7.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
Benzinga · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
Zacks · 3.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 2.9.2026
Yahoo · 1.9.2026
Yahoo · 31.8.2026
Yahoo · 31.8.2026
StockStory · 31.8.2026
Yahoo · 31.8.2026
EQT Corporation (EQT) 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.
EQT 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, EQT's estimated fair value is $75.00, which is 50.0% above the current price of $50.00. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
EQT's technical score is 10/100, 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: $75.00 vs. price $50.00 (+50.0%); Revenue growth (last year): 63.9%; Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 635.6%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Current ratio: 0.76; Calmar: 0.21 (3y annualized return 6.9% / max drawdown 32.4%); Price is below the 50-day average.
Yes — EQT 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 7 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rice Toby Z. | Open Market Sale | 14.8.2026 | 175,328 | -175,328 | $55.03 |
| Fenton Sarah | Tax Withholding in Shares | 27.7.2026 | 3,904 | -3,904 | $52.00 |
| Bolen J.E.B. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 27.7.2026 | 3,904 | -3,904 | $52.00 |
| Fenton Sarah | Tax Withholding in Shares | 27.7.2026 | 49,207 | -3,904 | $52.00 |
| Bolen J.E.B. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 27.7.2026 | 79,805 | -3,904 | $52.00 |
| Knop Jeremy | Tax Withholding in Shares | 24.7.2026 | 1,011 | -1,011 | $53.03 |
| Knop Jeremy | Tax Withholding in Shares | 24.7.2026 | 135,807 | -1,011 | $53.03 |
| Rice Daniel J. IV | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 541 | +541 | $53.17 |
| MCCARTNEY JOHN | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 44 | +44 | $53.17 |
| Rice Daniel J. IV | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 31,083 | +541 | $53.17 |
| MCCARTNEY JOHN | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 9,047 | +44 | $53.17 |
| Rice Toby Z. | Open Market Sale | 8.6.2026 | 1,731 | -1,731 | $53.46 |
| Rice Toby Z. | Open Market Sale | 8.6.2026 | 2,333,193 | -1,731 | $53.46 |
| Rice Toby Z. | Open Market Sale | 5.6.2026 | 10,511 | -10,511 | $55.17 |
| Rice Toby Z. | Open Market Sale | 5.6.2026 | 86,472 | -86,472 | $54.17 |
| Rice Toby Z. | Open Market Sale | 5.6.2026 | 2,345,435 | -86,472 | $54.17 |
| Rice Toby Z. | Open Market Sale | 5.6.2026 | 2,334,924 | -10,511 | $55.17 |
| Knop Jeremy | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.4.2026 | 266,667 | +266,667 | — |
| Evancho Lesley | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.4.2026 | 66,667 | +66,667 | — |
| Knop Jeremy | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.4.2026 | 266,667 | +266,667 | — |
| James Todd | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.4.2026 | 66,667 | +66,667 | — |
| Knop Jeremy | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.4.2026 | 266,666 | +266,666 | — |
| Fenton Sarah | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.4.2026 | 133,333 | +133,333 | — |
| Bolen J.E.B. | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.4.2026 | 133,333 | +133,333 | — |
| James Todd | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.4.2026 | 66,666 | +66,666 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
20,384,899 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 18,171,312 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
48.1% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 54.3% 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