Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Energy · ·
$194.54
▼ $16.99 (-8.0%)
Market data updated: 09/17 07:33 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/17/2026
News analyzed: 09/17/2026
Market Cap
$54.48B
Day Range
$191.49 - $198.65
52-Week Range
$136.13 - $216.90
Beta
—
Next Earnings
02.11.2026
FANG is a stock from the Energy sector — Oil, gas, and renewable energy — highly volatile profitability, dependent on global commodity prices.
+40.5% (1Y)
Strengths: 8/29 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
Revenue growth (last year)
Revenue growth (last year): 35.8%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
Liquidity risk
Current ratio: 0.42
Risk
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
83/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
91/100
Analog Quality
+5.3%
Median 40D Outcome
58/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
60%
+4.2% … +12.9%
🟡 Base
7%
+0.0% … +0.0%
🔴 Bearish
33%
-8.1% … -6.0%
Typical timeframe (based on real historical rates clearing a 60% bar): 5 trading days.
📌 Bottom line: Out of 15 similar historical cases for this stock, 60% (95% CI 36%–80%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of +1.2%.
Echo #1 — Momentum Breakout
2 occurrence(s) · 100% historical success
Echo #2 — Trend Acceleration
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 | 67% (42%–85%) | +3.2% | -1.4% … +5.7% | +0.5% |
| 10D | 27% (11%–52%) | -0.2% | -2.1% … +3.3% | +0.5% |
| 20D | 60% (36%–80%) | +1.2% | -4.9% … +7.5% | +1.4% |
| 40D | 73% (48%–89%) | +5.3% | +0.2% … +7.9% | +1.4% |
| 60D | 73% (48%–89%) | +5.3% | -2.1% … +18.1% | +1.6% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-04-02 | 83/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +5.1% | +3.5% |
| 2026-06-11 | 81/100 | Consolidation | +0.0% | +4.2% |
| 2019-08-01 | 80/100 | Downtrend | +1.2% | -10.2% |
| 2018-05-11 | 79/100 | Consolidation | -8.1% | +8.8% |
| 2024-06-04 | 79/100 | Consolidation | +9.4% | +4.0% |
| 2026-01-06 | 79/100 | Consolidation | +17.0% | +34.2% |
| 2025-11-05 | 79/100 | Downtrend | +16.2% | +18.6% |
| 2024-08-07 | 77/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -3.9% | -7.6% |
| 2026-05-26 | 77/100 | Consolidation | -6.0% | +8.1% |
| 2021-12-01 | 77/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +4.2% | +34.1% |
| 2024-11-15 | 77/100 | Downtrend | -10.0% | -11.1% |
| 2024-12-02 | 77/100 | Downtrend | -6.8% | -15.8% |
| 2026-04-17 | 75/100 | Consolidation | +12.9% | +5.3% |
| 2025-12-18 | 75/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +1.2% | +29.0% |
| 2025-09-15 | 75/100 | Downtrend | +5.6% | +17.6% |
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
50
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
46
Quality
63
Value
50
Momentum
33
Risk
40
Sentiment
92
Fundamental
47
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING FANG...
Recent media coverage of Diamondback Energy has focused on broader U.S. energy sector trends rather than company-specific developments. Headlines highlight energy stocks rising premarket due to geopolitical tensions in the Middle East, particularly Iran’s threats against Gulf energy infrastructure, which drove oil prices upward. Analysts briefly mention Diamondback’s strong financial performance, including robust free cash flow, share buybacks, and debt reduction, positioning it favorably amid market volatility. No company-specific news beyond general energy sector momentum is reported.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Diamondback Energy. News trend score: 92. Reason: 10 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 3 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
22
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
41
Psychology
36
Fundamentals
47
Technical
33
Valuation
50
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
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.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price (3M)
+6%
Market Narrative
59
Fundamental Reality
41
Narrative Gap
+18
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior suggests a **narrative-reality disconnect** (gap: 17) where extreme positive sentiment (100/100) persists despite weak momentum (-5.4%) and modest peer underperformance. Herding dominates (score: 40) as traders align with peers rather than act decisively, while FOMO (12) and euphoria (19) hint at detached optimism. The key question: *Will sentiment sustain despite negative momentum, or will volume spikes (1.11x avg) trigger a rebalancing?*
Updated: 09/08/2026, 11:58 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Iran warned that Gulf oil and gas infrastructure could be targeted in retaliation for attacks on its own assets"
"Shares of major U.S. energy companies moved higher... as crude oil prices extended their gains"
"Diamondback Energy is a Buy: strong Q2 free cash flow, buybacks/dividends, and debt paydown"
📈 12D 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 — 92/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor) — 12/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for this stock reflects deep philosophical and tactical differences among the methodologies. At the top, **Edgar Lawrence Smith** and **Samuel Armstrong Nelson** see it as a long-term or cyclically favorable bet, with Smith’s high score suggesting a ‘buy and hold’ mentality while Nelson’s approach leans into its oversold position. Meanwhile, **Philip Fisher** still finds it solid but not exceptional, hinting at a more cautious growth-oriented view. Conversely, **Jesse Livermore** and **Jack Schwager** reject it outright—Livermore’s trend-following discipline clashes with the stock’s perceived downtrend, while Schwager’s wizards would dismiss it for lacking a clear technical setup. The middle ground, occupied by **Howard Marks** and **Peter Lynch**, acknowledges its merits but warns of inflated expectations or overpriced growth, while **Benjamin Graham** and **Walter Bagehot** outright dismiss it for lacking defensive or liquidity qualities. The contrast underscores whether the stock’s strengths align with patience (Smith/Nelson) or if its risks outweigh its rewards (Graham/Bagehot).
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 92
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)
🟢 91
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟢 74
Solid, but not the exceptional quality Fisher looked for
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 68
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 55
Mixed — growth exists but the price already reflects much of it
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 50
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 46
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 46
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 45
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 42
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)
🟡 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
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 38
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 29
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 21
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 12
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 300 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (2 bullish · 8 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.
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
—
Operating Margin
8.4%
Net Margin
11.1%
EBITDA Margin
42.0%
ROE
4.5%
ROA
2.3%
ROIC
—
EPS
$5.73
Cash
$104.00M
Total Debt
$14.49B
Current Ratio
0.42
Debt/Equity
0.39
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 13.8.2026 | $1.100 |
| 14.5.2026 | $1.100 |
| 13.5.2026 | $1.100 |
| 5.3.2026 | $1.050 |
| 4.3.2026 | $1.050 |
| 13.11.2025 | $1.000 |
| 12.11.2025 | $1.000 |
| 14.8.2025 | $1.000 |
| 13.8.2025 | $1.000 |
| 15.5.2025 | $1.000 |
| 14.5.2025 | $1.000 |
| 6.3.2025 | $1.000 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
$127.90
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$127.90
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 10 positive, 7 neutral, 3 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
ChartMill · 16.9.2026
ChartMill · 16.9.2026
ChartMill · 16.9.2026
ChartMill · 16.9.2026
ChartMill · 16.9.2026
CNBC · 16.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 16.9.2026
CNBC · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
ChartMill · 15.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Benzinga · 15.9.2026
Benzinga · 15.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
Zacks · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
CNBC · 14.9.2026
ChartMill · 12.9.2026
Diamondback Energy (FANG) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 50/100, 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.
FANG currently scores 50/100 (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.
FANG's technical score is 33/100, 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: Revenue growth (last year): 35.8%; Operating margin is stable or improving over time; Debt/equity: 0.39.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Current ratio: 0.42; Calmar: 0.17 (3y annualized return 7.6% / max drawdown 43.5%); Earnings per share (EPS) growth: -63.1%.
Yes — FANG 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 20 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Diamondback Energy, Inc. | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.9.2026 | 2,808,459 | +2,808,459 | — |
| Diamondback Energy, Inc. | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.9.2026 | 1,007,000 | +1,007,000 | — |
| Diamondback Energy, Inc. | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.9.2026 | 1,007,000 | +1,007,000 | — |
| Diamondback Energy, Inc. | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.9.2026 | 2,808,459 | +2,808,459 | — |
| Plaumann Mark Lawrence | Open Market Sale | 21.8.2026 | 12,437 | -1,000 | $210.58 |
| Plaumann Mark Lawrence | Open Market Sale | 21.8.2026 | 1,000 | -1,000 | $210.58 |
| Van't Hof Matthew Kaes | Open Market Sale | 20.8.2026 | 115,940 | -500 | $215.06 |
| Van't Hof Matthew Kaes | Open Market Sale | 20.8.2026 | 116,440 | -9,500 | $214.64 |
| Wesson Daniel N | Open Market Sale | 20.8.2026 | 70,789 | -7,500 | $215.21 |
| Wesson Daniel N | Open Market Sale | 20.8.2026 | 7,500 | -7,500 | $215.21 |
| Van't Hof Matthew Kaes | Open Market Sale | 20.8.2026 | 500 | -500 | $215.06 |
| Van't Hof Matthew Kaes | Open Market Sale | 20.8.2026 | 9,500 | -9,500 | $214.64 |
| Thompson Jere W III | Open Market Sale | 14.8.2026 | 500 | -500 | $204.14 |
| Zmigrosky Matt | Open Market Sale | 14.8.2026 | 2,500 | -2,500 | $202.77 |
| Van't Hof Matthew Kaes | Open Market Sale | 11.8.2026 | 5,000 | -5,000 | $202.46 |
| Van't Hof Matthew Kaes | Open Market Sale | 11.8.2026 | 125,940 | -5,000 | $202.46 |
| Meloy Charles Alvin | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 2,730 | -2,730 | $199.44 |
| Meloy Charles Alvin | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 3,986 | -3,986 | $197.06 |
| Meloy Charles Alvin | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 19,055 | -19,055 | $198.74 |
| Meloy Charles Alvin | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 7,562 | -7,562 | $197.91 |
| Meloy Charles Alvin | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 847,544 | -3,986 | $197.06 |
| Meloy Charles Alvin | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 839,982 | -7,562 | $197.91 |
| Meloy Charles Alvin | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 820,927 | -19,055 | $198.74 |
| Meloy Charles Alvin | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 818,197 | -2,730 | $199.44 |
| Van't Hof Matthew Kaes | Gift | 17.6.2026 | 2,674 | -2,674 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
8,207,836 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 8,265,155 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
52.3% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 38.3% 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