Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$150.11
▼ $0.78 (-0.5%)
Market data updated: 09/19 08:52 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/18/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
$186.13B
Day Range
$149.57 - $153.23
52-Week Range
$108.46 - $157.29
Beta
—
Next Earnings
28.10.2026
Support
$127.61
Resistance
$153.23
GILD is a stock from the Healthcare sector — Pharmaceuticals, biotech, medical devices, and health insurance — less sensitive to economic cycles, but exposed to regulation and FDA approvals.
+32.1% (1Y)
Strengths: 20/32 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
🟢 Bullish
Technical Trend
🟢 Bullish
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Earnings per share (EPS) growth
Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 1684.2%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $105.28 vs. price $150.11 (-29.9%)
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.
81/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
91/100
Analog Quality
+3.4%
Median 40D Outcome
59/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
53%
+2.7% … +12.8%
🟡 Base
20%
-0.2% … -0.0%
🔴 Bearish
27%
-7.6% … -4.1%
Typical timeframe (based on real historical rates clearing a 60% bar): 40 trading days.
📌 Bottom line: Out of 15 similar historical cases for this stock, 53% (95% CI 30%–75%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of +1.4%.
Echo #1 — Trend Acceleration
9 occurrence(s) · 33% historical success
Echo #2 — Momentum Breakout
3 occurrence(s) · 100% 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 | 40% (20%–64%) | +0.7% | -1.1% … +1.9% | +0.2% |
| 10D | 33% (15%–58%) | -2.1% | -3.6% … +2.6% | +0.2% |
| 20D | 53% (30%–75%) | +1.4% | -1.1% … +5.4% | +0.2% |
| 40D | 67% (42%–85%) | +3.4% | +0.5% … +13.2% | +0.9% |
| 60D | 80% (55%–93%) | +11.6% | +7.3% … +15.6% | +1.3% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-12-23 | 81/100 | ✓ Uptrend | -0.4% | +14.3% |
| 2025-11-05 | 78/100 | Uptrend | +0.0% | +16.9% |
| 2023-04-25 | 77/100 | ✓ Uptrend | -8.2% | -5.8% |
| 2019-12-12 | 77/100 | Uptrend | -4.9% | +9.0% |
| 2025-12-19 | 77/100 | Consolidation | +3.9% | +13.5% |
| 2024-09-26 | 76/100 | Uptrend | +6.9% | +11.5% |
| 2025-07-24 | 76/100 | Uptrend | +2.6% | +8.5% |
| 2024-01-08 | 75/100 | Uptrend | -7.5% | -17.2% |
| 2020-02-03 | 75/100 | Consolidation | +11.8% | +25.3% |
| 2025-01-21 | 75/100 | Consolidation | +15.8% | +12.8% |
| 2025-11-24 | 74/100 | ✓ Uptrend | -0.1% | +19.6% |
| 2026-01-20 | 72/100 | Consolidation | +23.0% | +11.6% |
| 2024-12-02 | 72/100 | Uptrend | -1.8% | +23.4% |
| 2025-07-01 | 72/100 | Uptrend | +2.7% | -0.7% |
| 2025-10-10 | 72/100 | ✓ Uptrend | +1.4% | +6.1% |
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 XLV (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
70
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.
🕰️ StockIQ Time Machine
What did StockIQ know — and when? Pick a date from the real accumulated history.
As of August 26, 2026
Then
69
$148.77
Now
70
$150.11
What happened since
Signals detected by this date
No signals detected by this date
🧬 STOCK DNA
This stock's profile across 8 real dimensions — a research tool, not a recommendation
Growth
62
Quality
58
Value
38
Momentum
84
Risk
56
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
79
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING GILD...
Recent media coverage of Gilead Sciences highlights its strategic expansion beyond HIV into oncology and immunology, with a focus on FDA and regulatory approvals. The company gained attention for the approval of **Bixlenvo**, a once-daily HIV treatment combining bictegravir and lenacapavir, and **Trodelvy plus Keytruda** as a first-line therapy for triple-negative breast cancer. Analysts also discuss Gilead’s growing pipeline in **CAR/TCR/TIL cancer therapies**, positioning it competitively amid industry shifts, while questioning whether its stock reflects these advancements.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Gilead Sciences. News trend score: 100. Reason: 11 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 2 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
32
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
42
Psychology
58
Fundamentals
79
Technical
84
Valuation
38
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
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.
Price (3M)
+21%
Market Narrative
77
Fundamental Reality
42
Narrative Gap
+35
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
GILD’s dominant herding behavior reflects a market where participants are aligning with peers rather than acting independently. The narrow gap between the stock’s decline (-3.0%) and its sector (-3.2%) suggests a collective response to broader conditions. Meanwhile, elevated euphoria and overconfidence scores—despite overvaluation metrics—may indicate traders are prioritizing momentum over fundamentals. The key question is whether this herding will persist or if a divergence emerges when narratives (narrative gap: 29) clash with reality. Anchoring near resistance could reinforce short-term stability, but the disconnect between price momentum and EPS growth hints at potential overreach.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 01:04 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Gilead Sciences is branching out beyond its HIV franchise into oncology and immunology therapies"
"Gilead Sciences recently secured U.S. FDA approval for Bixlenvo... These back-to-back approvals broaden Gilead’s reach"
"Gilead Sciences added another treatment to its HIV portfolio with the FDA approval of Bixlenvo"
"See Exactly How Gilead... is Positioned to Win Through 870+ Rivals"
📈 15D 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
Peter Lynch — 76/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham — 12/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Based on the documented principles of investors with higher scores—Nelson, Lynch, Mackay and Veblen—the model estimates that GILD appears favorably positioned in its cycle, shows growth that outpaces price, lacks crowd mania, and aligns growth with real value creation. In contrast, mid‑range scores from Marks, Livermore, Schwager and the efficient‑market view suggest a more neutral or mixed outlook, citing a middle‑of‑cycle position, unclear trend, and insufficient edge over an index. The lowest scores from Graham, Housel and Bagehot lead the model to estimate significant concerns, highlighting lack of defensive criteria, volatility that could shake patient holders, and liquidity risks. These divergent conclusions stem directly from how each methodology weights cycle, growth, valuation, risk and market efficiency factors.
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 76
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟢 71
Growth appears aligned with real value creation
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)
🟡 55
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
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
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
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 47
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 44
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 39
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 35
Risk/valuation combination Marks would flag as a caution sign
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 24
The kind of volatility that tends to shake patient holders out
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
🔴 23
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🔴 20
Cycle looks stretched toward overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 12
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
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 an uptrend (10 bullish · 1 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
78.8%
Operating Margin
34.0%
Net Margin
28.9%
EBITDA Margin
34.0%
ROE
37.5%
ROA
14.4%
ROIC
—
EPS
$6.84
Cash
$7.56B
Total Debt
$24.94B
Current Ratio
1.55
Debt/Equity
1.10
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 15.6.2026 | $0.820 |
| 14.6.2026 | $0.820 |
| 13.3.2026 | $0.820 |
| 12.3.2026 | $0.820 |
| 15.12.2025 | $0.790 |
| 14.12.2025 | $0.790 |
| 15.9.2025 | $0.790 |
| 14.9.2025 | $0.790 |
| 13.6.2025 | $0.790 |
| 12.6.2025 | $0.790 |
| 14.3.2025 | $0.790 |
| 13.3.2025 | $0.790 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$150.11
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$105.28
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-29.9%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
2.6%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2.6% | $9.70B | $8.90B |
| 2 | 2.6% | $9.95B | $8.38B |
| 3 | 2.6% | $10.21B | $7.88B |
| 4 | 2.5% | $10.47B | $7.41B |
| 5 | 2.5% | $10.73B | $6.97B |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$9.46B
Terminal Value
$169.16B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$109.95B
Enterprise Value
$149.49B
Net Debt
$17.37B
Equity Value
$132.12B
*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
$18.09
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$2.06
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 11 positive, 7 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 15.9.2026
Benzinga · 15.9.2026
Benzinga · 15.9.2026
Benzinga · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
GuruFocus.com · 15.9.2026
Simply Wall St. · 14.9.2026
Gilead Sciences (GILD) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 70/100, rated "Strong". The score is a weighted average across up to 7 categories (technical, fundamental, growth, fair value, news, quality, risk), based on real data only.
GILD currently scores 70/100 (Strong) 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, GILD's estimated fair value is $105.28, which is 29.9% below the current price of $150.11. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
GILD's technical score is 84/100, which currently reads as bullish — 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: Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 1684.2%; Net income growth: 1672.9%; Operating margin is stable or improving over time.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $105.28 vs. price $150.11 (-29.9%); Free cash flow growth: -8.2%; MACD histogram is negative — falling momentum.
Yes — GILD 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 6 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cain Wettan Keeley M | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 10.9.2026 | 590 | -590 | — |
| O'Day Daniel Patrick | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 10.9.2026 | 8,780 | -8,780 | — |
| O'Day Daniel Patrick | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 10.9.2026 | 8,780 | +8,780 | — |
| O'Day Daniel Patrick | Tax Withholding in Shares | 10.9.2026 | 4,230 | -4,230 | $144.81 |
| Dickinson Andrew D | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 10.9.2026 | 2,797 | +2,797 | — |
| Mercier Johanna | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 10.9.2026 | 2,797 | +2,797 | — |
| Mercier Johanna | Tax Withholding in Shares | 10.9.2026 | 1,347 | -1,347 | $144.81 |
| Cain Wettan Keeley M | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 10.9.2026 | 590 | +590 | — |
| Dickinson Andrew D | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 10.9.2026 | 2,797 | -2,797 | — |
| Berger Dietmar | Tax Withholding in Shares | 10.9.2026 | 263 | -263 | $144.81 |
| Berger Dietmar | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 10.9.2026 | 533 | -533 | — |
| Cain Wettan Keeley M | Tax Withholding in Shares | 10.9.2026 | 285 | -285 | $144.81 |
| Dickinson Andrew D | Tax Withholding in Shares | 10.9.2026 | 1,347 | -1,347 | $144.81 |
| Mercier Johanna | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 10.9.2026 | 2,797 | -2,797 | — |
| Berger Dietmar | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 10.9.2026 | 533 | +533 | — |
| O'Day Daniel Patrick | Open Market Sale | 1.9.2026 | 7,992 | -7,992 | $148.36 |
| O'Day Daniel Patrick | Open Market Sale | 1.9.2026 | 1,600 | -1,600 | $147.51 |
| O'Day Daniel Patrick | Open Market Sale | 1.9.2026 | 5,408 | -5,408 | $149.38 |
| WELTERS ANTHONY | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 26.8.2026 | 0 | -7,718 | — |
| WELTERS ANTHONY | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 26.8.2026 | 23,176 | +10,282 | $61.35 |
| WELTERS ANTHONY | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 26.8.2026 | 20,612 | +7,718 | $60.67 |
| WELTERS ANTHONY | Open Market Sale | 26.8.2026 | 12,894 | -4,600 | $148.82 |
| WELTERS ANTHONY | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 26.8.2026 | 5,569 | -10,282 | — |
| WELTERS ANTHONY | Open Market Sale | 26.8.2026 | 19,774 | -3,402 | $148.24 |
| WELTERS ANTHONY | Open Market Sale | 26.8.2026 | 17,494 | -3,118 | $148.31 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
23,007,029 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 24,385,621 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. 41.4% 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