Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Technology · ·
$22.69
▼ $0.60 (-2.6%)
Market data updated: 09/19 10:36 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/18/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
$22.56 - $23.59
52-Week Range
$16.60 - $71.48
Beta
—
Next Earnings
03.11.2026
Support
$19.90
Resistance
$31.22
FIG is a stock from the Technology sector — Software, hardware, chip, and computing-services companies — revenue tied to the pace of innovation and upgrade cycles.
-57.5% (1Y)
Strengths: 6/28 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
🔴 Bearish
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): 41.0%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $18.64 vs. price $22.69 (-17.8%)
Fair Value
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (62/100), but fair-value analysis scores this stock as relatively expensive (38/100) — the growth story and the current price aren't fully aligned.
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
40
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
14d ago · $24.12
Evidence: Narrative Gap moved from 61 to 7 day-over-day
What happened after
🐂🐻 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
62
Quality
42
Value
38
Momentum
23
Risk
40
Sentiment
56
Fundamental
35
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 coverage of Figma focuses on growing competitive pressure from Adobe’s new AI design tool, Project Oasis, which Adobe is testing with Figma users, raising investor concerns. The company also saw its general counsel sell a sizable block of shares under a 10b5‑1 plan, while a Goldman Sachs conference presentation highlighted CEO Dylan Field’s outlook. Meanwhile, a rating downgrade and high forward P/E point to valuation and AI‑disruption risks, and broader tech‑stock weakness has impacted Figma’s recent price movement.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Figma, Inc.. News trend score: 56. Reason: 7 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 6 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
23
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
36
Psychology
27
Fundamentals
35
Technical
23
Valuation
38
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
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.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price (3M)
+23%
Market Narrative
40
Fundamental Reality
36
Narrative Gap
+4
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
Market behavior suggests a **narrative-reality gap** (6-point divergence) where valuation metrics (e.g., +22% DCF premium) clash with weak momentum (-10% ROC). Overconfidence and panic coexist: traders may cling to overvalued expectations despite underperformance, while subdued volatility (0.94x ATR) hints at cautious, not frantic, selling. The key question is whether the gap persists as peers outperform (+1.0% avg) or if FIG’s divergence widens further. Herding is absent, reinforcing individualistic, possibly conflicting, decision-making.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 05:00 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Figma (FIG) shows 48% YoY revenue growth and 136% NDR, but a 95x forward P/E raises compression risk"
📈 9D 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
Charles Mackay — 93/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jesse Livermore — 7/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Based on Nelson’s documented principles, the model estimates FIG is in a favorable cycle position, being closer to oversold than overbought, while Mackay’s view finds no crowd mania and Bagehot highlights strong liquidity that would likely survive a credit squeeze. Based on Howard Marks (Market Cycle)’s documented principles, the model estimates the stock looks early-to-mid cycle and not overextended, whereas Marks himself judges the risk reasonably priced without clear timing red flags. Based on Philip Fisher’s documented principles, the model estimates the firm is solid but lacks the exceptional quality he seeks, and Jack Schwager finds no clear edge, reflecting the shift from quality growth to neutral risk assessment. Graham, Loeb, Lynch, and the index-oriented view all flag the stock as insufficiently cheap, too risky, or lacking growth-at-a-reasonable-price, while Veblen and Livermore point to growth pursued for its own sake and a negative trend, leading to the lowest estimates.
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 93
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 89
Strong liquidity — would likely survive a real credit squeeze
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 86
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 86
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)
🟡 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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 60
Solid, but not the exceptional quality Fisher looked for
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 50
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 44
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?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 45%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 43
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 37
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 25
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 12
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 7
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 279 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (1 bullish · 9 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
82.4%
Operating Margin
-122.2%
Net Margin
-118.4%
EBITDA Margin
-120.7%
ROE
-82.8%
ROA
-53.3%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$3.71
Cash
$403.47M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
2.58
Debt/Equity
—
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$22.69
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$18.64
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-17.8%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
25.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 25.0% | $307.80M | $282.38M |
| 2 | 19.4% | $367.43M | $309.26M |
| 3 | 13.8% | $417.95M | $322.74M |
| 4 | 8.1% | $451.91M | $320.15M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $463.21M | $301.05M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$246.24M
Terminal Value
$7.30B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$4.75B
Enterprise Value
$6.28B
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$6.28B
*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
$4.48
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$4.12
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 7 positive, 7 neutral, 6 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
MT Newswires · 14.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 10.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
Insider Monkey · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
Motley Fool · 9.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 8.9.2026
Benzinga · 8.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 7.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 6.9.2026
Proactive · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
Zacks · 4.9.2026
Benzinga · 4.9.2026
Benzinga · 4.9.2026
Figma, Inc. (FIG) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 40/100, rated "Weak". The score is a weighted average across up to 7 categories (technical, fundamental, growth, fair value, news, quality, risk), based on real data only.
FIG currently scores 40/100 (Weak) 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, FIG's estimated fair value is $18.64, which is 17.8% below the current price of $22.69. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
FIG's technical score is 23/100, 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): 41.0%; Free cash flow growth: 486.6%; Current ratio: 2.58.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $18.64 vs. price $22.69 (-17.8%); Operating margin: -122.2% (negative); Net margin: -118.4% (negative).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for FIG.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 8 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mulligan Brendan | Open Market Sale | 3.9.2026 | 64,606 | -64,606 | $25.73 |
| Herb Tyler | Open Market Sale | 3.9.2026 | 1,416 | -1,416 | $26.29 |
| Mulligan Brendan | Open Market Sale | 3.9.2026 | 44,500 | -44,500 | $26.35 |
| Voskanian Shaunt | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.9.2026 | 8,080 | -8,080 | $27.49 |
| Herb Tyler | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.9.2026 | 1,838 | -1,838 | $27.49 |
| Mulligan Brendan | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.9.2026 | 9,435 | -9,435 | $27.49 |
| Melwani Praveer | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.9.2026 | 7,037 | -7,037 | $27.49 |
| Lilly III John Osborne | Other Transaction | 28.8.2026 | 5,460 | +5,460 | — |
| Mulligan Brendan | Open Market Sale | 28.8.2026 | 130,800 | -130,800 | $30.15 |
| Mulligan Brendan | Open Market Sale | 28.8.2026 | 80,699 | -80,699 | $29.21 |
| Lilly III John Osborne | Other Transaction | 28.8.2026 | 330,306 | +330,306 | — |
| Mulligan Brendan | Open Market Sale | 28.8.2026 | 100 | -100 | $30.89 |
| Field Dylan | Gift | 27.8.2026 | 308,859 | -40,000 | — |
| Herb Tyler | Open Market Sale | 27.8.2026 | 252,640 | -2,000 | $30.00 |
| Field Dylan | Gift | 27.8.2026 | 40,000 | -40,000 | — |
| Herb Tyler | Open Market Sale | 27.8.2026 | 2,000 | -2,000 | $30.00 |
| Reed Andrew Phillips | Other Transaction | 27.8.2026 | 116,263 | -14,533 | — |
| Reed Andrew Phillips | Other Transaction | 27.8.2026 | 70,543 | +35,223 | — |
| Reed Andrew Phillips | Other Transaction | 27.8.2026 | 130,199 | +58,892 | — |
| Reed Andrew Phillips | Other Transaction | 27.8.2026 | 287,072 | +143,536 | — |
| Reed Andrew Phillips | Other Transaction | 27.8.2026 | 5,704,534 | -713,067 | — |
| Reed Andrew Phillips | Other Transaction | 27.8.2026 | 17,721,916 | -2,215,239 | — |
| Reed Andrew Phillips | Other Transaction | 27.8.2026 | 35,223 | +35,223 | — |
| Reed Andrew Phillips | Other Transaction | 27.8.2026 | 143,536 | +143,536 | — |
| Reed Andrew Phillips | Other Transaction | 27.8.2026 | 14,533 | -14,533 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
39,058,401 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 60,328,100 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
42.7% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 47.8% 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