Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Industrials · ·
$55.30
▼ $1.15 (-2.0%)
Market data updated: 09/16 10:11 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/16/2026
News analyzed: 09/16/2026
Market Cap
$16.86B
Day Range
$54.75 - $56.44
52-Week Range
$47.31 - $64.56
Beta
—
Next Earnings
27.10.2026
FTV is a stock from the Industrials sector — Manufacturing, aerospace, defense, and infrastructure — closely tied to capital-investment cycles and economic growth.
+16.2% (1Y)
Strengths: 5/32 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
Operating margin stability
Operating margin is stable or improving over time
Quality
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $30.16 vs. price $55.30 (-45.5%)
Fair Value
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
80/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
90/100
Analog Quality
-1.5%
Median 40D Outcome
64/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
40%
+1.9% … +9.8%
🟡 Base
20%
+0.4% … +0.7%
🔴 Bearish
40%
-11.3% … -3.9%
📌 Bottom line: Out of 15 similar historical cases for this stock, 40% (95% CI 20%–64%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of +0.5%.
Echo #1 — Oversold Reversal
4 occurrence(s) · 50% 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%) | +1.0% | -0.0% … +4.1% | +0.3% |
| 10D | 47% (25%–70%) | +0.9% | +0.0% … +5.1% | +0.4% |
| 20D | 40% (20%–64%) | +0.5% | -4.5% … +2.0% | +0.8% |
| 40D | 47% (25%–70%) | -1.5% | -9.4% … +6.7% | +1.8% |
| 60D | 40% (20%–64%) | -0.7% | -6.1% … +9.9% | +2.2% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-05-03 | 80/100 | Consolidation | +1.8% | +10.0% |
| 2022-01-31 | 79/100 | ✓ Downtrend | -10.2% | -18.2% |
| 2021-02-03 | 78/100 | Consolidation | +0.3% | +6.9% |
| 2025-03-17 | 77/100 | Consolidation | -11.7% | -4.6% |
| 2023-09-28 | 76/100 | Consolidation | -12.5% | -2.0% |
| 2023-05-03 | 76/100 | Consolidation | +2.3% | +22.4% |
| 2018-11-02 | 76/100 | Downtrend | +1.5% | -0.7% |
| 2025-07-22 | 76/100 | Downtrend | -5.7% | -5.1% |
| 2021-12-21 | 76/100 | Consolidation | -1.8% | -14.7% |
| 2019-10-09 | 75/100 | ✓ Downtrend | +12.8% | +18.4% |
| 2025-06-25 | 75/100 | Consolidation | -3.3% | -7.9% |
| 2021-05-19 | 74/100 | Consolidation | +0.5% | +9.9% |
| 2022-04-19 | 74/100 | ✓ Downtrend | +0.9% | -7.1% |
| 2026-03-25 | 73/100 | Consolidation | +11.6% | +12.6% |
| 2026-05-21 | 73/100 | Consolidation | +4.5% | +0.7% |
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 XLI (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
39
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
34
Quality
63
Value
38
Momentum
12
Risk
40
Sentiment
74
Fundamental
49
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING FTV...
Recent media coverage of Fortive has primarily focused on its subsidiary Fluke, highlighting product innovations and educational partnerships. Fluke introduced the ultra-portable **ii01 acoustic camera** to help technicians detect hidden leaks efficiently, expanding its **iSee Mobile Imaging Series**. Additionally, Fluke collaborated with **Washington State University** to open a new engineering lab, offering hands-on training to over 4,000 students across five campuses. Separately, Fortive’s leadership, including CEO Olumide Soroye, will present at the **Morgan Stanley Laguna Conference** on September 15, 2026. The company has also been noted for its cash-generating performance in financial analyses.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Fortive. News trend score: 74. Reason: 8 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 4 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
24
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
42
Psychology
45
Fundamentals
49
Technical
12
Valuation
38
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Price (3M)
-7%
Market Narrative
60
Fundamental Reality
42
Narrative Gap
+18
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant anchoring behavior (71) reflects traders focusing on the stock’s proximity to support (1.4%), ignoring its overvaluation (+87% above DCF) and weak momentum. Overconfidence (45) and euphoria (28) persist despite contradictory fundamentals, hinting at a disconnect between price and intrinsic value. The narrative gap (20) further suggests traders overestimate positive narratives relative to reality. The key question: will traders break from anchoring when support is tested, or will overconfidence sustain despite valuation extremes?
Updated: 09/09/2026, 02:56 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Fluke Expands the iSee Mobile Imaging Series with New ii01 Acoustic Camera — The ultra-portable mobile acoustic camera puts professional acoustic imaging in more technicians’ hands to quickly find hidden leaks and prevent costly downtime"
"Fortive (FTV) recently drew investor attention after its board approved a regular quarterly cash dividend of $0.07 per share, a 16.7% increase."
"Fortive Corporation will be presenting at the Morgan Stanley 14th Annual Laguna Conference on Tuesday, September 15th, 2026."
📈 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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — 79/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor) — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Based on his documented principles, the model estimates that Samuel Armstrong Nelson’s cycle analysis favors the stock (score 99) because it is closer to oversold than overbought, while Charles Mackay’s crowd‑mania gauge sees only moderate interest (score 73) and finds no obvious mania. Jack Schwager’s disciplined reward/risk approach also gives a high score (72) and a favorable setup, aligning with Howard Marks’ (Market Cycle) view that the position is early‑to‑mid cycle and not overextended (score 68). In contrast, investors such as Philip Fisher (32) and Peter Lynch (32) conclude the stock lacks the quality/growth signature and does not meet growth‑at‑a‑reasonable‑price thresholds, while Benjamin Graham’s defensive criteria give a very low score (13) and fail most safety checks, indicating high risk. Overall, the methodologies diverge from optimistic cycle‑based perspectives to skeptical value and growth assessments, reflecting differing emphasis on market timing, fundamental quality, and risk tolerance.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 79
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 76
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 72
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
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 (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 59
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 47
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)
🟡 45
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 44
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 44
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 32
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 25
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 25
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 21
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
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 13
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 0
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 (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 downtrend 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
63.5%
Operating Margin
17.3%
Net Margin
13.9%
EBITDA Margin
27.8%
ROE
9.0%
ROA
4.9%
ROIC
—
EPS
$1.74
Cash
$375.50M
Total Debt
$3.21B
Current Ratio
0.71
Debt/Equity
0.50
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 4.9.2026 | $0.070 |
| 22.6.2026 | $0.060 |
| 21.6.2026 | $0.060 |
| 13.3.2026 | $0.060 |
| 12.3.2026 | $0.060 |
| 28.11.2025 | $0.060 |
| 27.11.2025 | $0.060 |
| 12.9.2025 | $0.060 |
| 11.9.2025 | $0.060 |
| 30.5.2025 | $0.060 |
| 29.5.2025 | $0.060 |
| 28.2.2025 | $0.060 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$55.30
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$30.16
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-45.5%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
-5.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | -5.0% | $929.20M | $852.47M |
| 2 | -3.1% | $900.16M | $757.64M |
| 3 | -1.2% | $888.91M | $686.40M |
| 4 | 0.6% | $894.46M | $633.66M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $916.82M | $595.87M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$978.10M
Terminal Value
$14.46B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$9.40B
Enterprise Value
$12.92B
Net Debt
$2.83B
Equity Value
$10.09B
*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
$19.29
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$9.07
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 8 positive, 8 neutral, 4 negative out of the last 20 articles.
SeekingAlpha · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
StockStory · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Business Wire · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 7.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 2.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 2.9.2026
Yahoo · 1.9.2026
Business Wire · 1.9.2026
Yahoo · 27.8.2026
StockStory · 27.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 23.8.2026
Yahoo · 22.8.2026
Simply Wall St. · 21.8.2026
Fortive (FTV) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 39/100, 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.
FTV currently scores 39/100 (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, FTV's estimated fair value is $30.16, which is 45.5% below the current price of $55.30. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
FTV's technical score is 12/100, 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: Operating margin is stable or improving over time; Debt/equity: 0.50; Gross margin: 63.5% — strong.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $30.16 vs. price $55.30 (-45.5%); Current ratio: 0.71; Calmar: -0.02 (3y annualized return -0.7% / max drawdown 28.4%).
Yes — FTV 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 2 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Underwood Peter C | Open Market Sale | 10.8.2026 | 8,662 | -8,662 | $61.59 |
| Underwood Peter C | Open Market Sale | 10.8.2026 | 79,118 | -8,662 | $61.59 |
| Okerstrom Mark D | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.7.2026 | 20.37 | +20.37 | $62.31 |
| Okerstrom Mark D | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.7.2026 | 3,910 | +20 | $62.31 |
| Okerstrom Mark D | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.7.2026 | 20.406 | +20.406 | $62.20 |
| Okerstrom Mark D | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.7.2026 | 3,889 | +20 | $62.20 |
| Mulhall Christopher M. | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.7.2026 | 1.61 | +1.61 | $63.60 |
| Soroye Olumide | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.7.2026 | 11.266 | +11.266 | $63.60 |
| Okerstrom Mark D | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.7.2026 | 3.627 | +3.627 | $63.60 |
| Mulhall Christopher M. | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.7.2026 | 6.05 | +6.05 | $63.60 |
| Desjourdy Amee | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.7.2026 | 1.004 | +1.004 | $63.60 |
| Underwood Peter C | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.7.2026 | 13.135 | +13.135 | $63.60 |
| Underwood Peter C | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.7.2026 | 13,936 | +13 | $63.60 |
| Okerstrom Mark D | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.7.2026 | 3,869 | +4 | $63.60 |
| Mulhall Christopher M. | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.7.2026 | 6,419 | +6 | $63.60 |
| Mulhall Christopher M. | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.7.2026 | 1,708 | +2 | $63.60 |
| Desjourdy Amee | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.7.2026 | 1,065 | +1 | $63.60 |
| Soroye Olumide | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.7.2026 | 11,953 | +11 | $63.60 |
| Lassiter Wright III | L | 2.7.2026 | 4.136 | +4.136 | $62.12 |
| Soroye Olumide | Tax Withholding in Shares | 2.7.2026 | 3,777 | -3,777 | $62.65 |
| Lassiter Wright III | L | 2.7.2026 | 25,761 | +4 | $62.12 |
| Soroye Olumide | Tax Withholding in Shares | 2.7.2026 | 254,186 | -3,777 | $62.65 |
| Okerstrom Mark D | Grant/Award from Employer | 26.6.2026 | 20.645 | +20.645 | $61.48 |
| Okerstrom Mark D | Grant/Award from Employer | 26.6.2026 | 3,869 | +21 | $61.48 |
| Okerstrom Mark D | Grant/Award from Employer | 12.6.2026 | 21.105 | +21.105 | $60.14 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
14,351,596 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 12,721,707 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
79.2% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 54.7% 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