Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Technology · ·
30.75 ₪
▲ 0.00 ₪ (+0.0%)
Market data updated: 09/20 03:19 AM
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
29.44 ₪ - 31.76 ₪
52-Week Range
28.55 ₪ - 62.50 ₪
Beta
—
Next Earnings
—
Support
28.55 ₪
Resistance
37.62 ₪
GILT.TA is a stock from the Technology sector — Software, hardware, chip, and computing-services companies — revenue tied to the pace of innovation and upgrade cycles.
-2.7% (1Y)
🔴 Weak
Strengths: 4/15 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
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Golden Cross
SMA 50 recently crossed above SMA 200
Technical
Biggest negative driver
Daily volatility (ATR)
ATR: 4.4% of price
Risk
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
NO RELIABLE ECHO FOUND
Only 0 historical analog(s) found after removing overlapping dates — too few for a statistically meaningful comparison.
Historical matches considered: 0
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.
GILT.TA’s overall investor score of **39** reflects a stock with mixed signals, where technical and risk factors drag the rating down despite a modest positive momentum indicator. The **technical category** (score: 36) highlights a weakening trend, as the stock remains **below both the 50-day and 200-day moving averages**, signaling potential short-term resistance. However, the **positive MACD histogram** and **price above the SAR point** suggest a fragile uptrend, though the **RSI (44.0) and %K (42.4)** indicate neutral to weak momentum. The **risk category** (score: 34) is particularly concerning due to a **high volatility-to-return ratio**, with a **Calmar ratio of 0.14**—meaning the stock’s **52.6% max drawdown** far outweighs its **7.4% annualized return** over three years. Meanwhile, the **news category** (score: 50) lacks explicit evidence, leaving sentiment analysis ambiguous but not overtly negative. The stock’s **underperformance (-19.3% vs. index over 3 months)** further underscores its relative weakness, balancing only against the **rising momentum** as a minor technical bright spot.
The stock is trading below both the 50-day (5.2% decline) and 200-day (12.8% decline) moving averages, with a neutral RSI (44.0) and %K (42.4), despite a positive MACD histogram and price above its SAR point.
This suggests a weakening trend with potential short-term resistance, though momentum indicators hint at a fragile upward push.
No explicit news or sentiment data is provided, resulting in a neutral score of 50 with no positive or negative outliers.
Lack of news context means the stock’s performance is driven purely by technical and risk factors rather than external catalysts.
The stock exhibits high volatility (ATR: 4.6% of price) and a severe drawdown (52.6%) relative to its 3-year annualized return (7.4%), yielding a Calmar ratio of 0.14.
This extreme risk-reward imbalance indicates potential instability, making the stock vulnerable to sharp corrections.
StockIQ conclusion
GILT.TA’s **WEAK rating (39)** stems from a combination of **technical weakness** (below key moving averages) and **high risk exposure** (extreme drawdown relative to returns), offset only by **fragile positive momentum**. While short-term volatility and underperformance raise concerns, the stock’s **neutral RSI and SAR alignment** could offer cautious optimism if external factors stabilize. However, without news-driven catalysts or improved risk metrics, the outlook remains precarious, relying heavily on technical reversals rather than fundamental strength.
Written automatically from the computed data shown on this page only — not investment advice.
🗓️ 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
44
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
No data available
Quality
No data available
Value
No data available
Momentum
44
Risk
34
Sentiment
50
Fundamental
No data available
Institutional
No data available
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
Not enough comparably-scored stocks yet to show similar matches.
SCANNING GILT.TA...
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
5
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
71
Fundamentals
—
Technical
44
Valuation
—
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
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.
Price (3M)
-20%
Market Narrative
43
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
-7
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior for GILT.TA is overwhelmingly consistent with **loss aversion**, as the steep 3-month drop (-33.8%) and elevated trading volume (1.13x average) signal reluctance to sell further. While peers have rallied (+2.2%), this stock’s stagnation (+0.0%) and neutral RSI (44) suggest hesitation rather than panic. The key question is whether the elevated volume reflects defensive positioning or a bottoming attempt—both require confirmation from price action. Narrative-reality misalignment (-9 gap) may further entrench caution, as sentiment (50/100) fails to justify recent underperformance.
Updated: 09/05/2026, 04:56 PM
What could change this?
📈 10D Investor Psychology
Signal classification confidence: Medium (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 — 98/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide between methodologies that prioritize macroeconomic positioning and those that demand deep fundamental or trend-based validation. Investors like Charles Mackay and Howard Marks (both cycle-focused) give it high marks—Mackay sees no crowd-driven mania, while Marks’ cycle analysis suggests it’s in an early-to-mid phase, not overbought. Similarly, Nelson and Schwager, who favor cyclical or disciplined setups, also rate it favorably, with Nelson noting a favorable oversold position and Schwager spotting a strong reward/risk profile. However, the contrast is stark with trend-followers like Jesse Livermore, who would avoid it outright due to its negative trend, and risk-averse voices like Gerald Loeb and Morgan Housel, who flag volatility or capital-threatening risks. Meanwhile, fundamentalists like Graham, Fisher, and Lynch can’t even score it due to insufficient data, while efficient-market theorists dismiss it as a poor fit for passive indexing. The debate hinges on whether the stock’s cyclical or technical appeal outweighs its lack of concrete fundamentals or its volatility risk.
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 98
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 90
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)
🟢 70
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)
🟡 54
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 50
Not enough balance-sheet/valuation data for a real Graham read
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 50
Not enough fundamentals data for a real Fisher read
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 50
Not enough growth data for a real Lynch read
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 50
Not enough balance-sheet data for a real Bagehot read
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 50
Not enough growth/insider data for a real Veblen read
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 50
Not enough valuation data for a real Enterprising-Graham read
Key question
Is the stock statistically cheap enough to justify the extra risk?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 37
Cycle looks stretched toward overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 29
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 28
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 22
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🔴 15
Not enough dividend/growth data for a real Smith read
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 25%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 0
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?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 30%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 254 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (4 bullish · 7 bearish · 2 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.
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 0 positive, 0 neutral, 0 negative out of the last 0 articles.
No recent articles found for this stock.
StockIQ doesn't currently have enough real data to compute a reliable score for Gilat Satellite Networks Ltd (GILT.TA) — only 3 of 7 categories are available right now. Rather than show a misleading number, this page shows which data is missing instead.
StockIQ doesn't give buy/sell recommendations — and for GILT.TA specifically, there currently isn't enough real data (only 3 of 7 categories available) to state even a factual score reliably. Check back once more data is available.
GILT.TA's technical score is 44/100, which currently reads as neutral — 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: SMA 50 recently crossed above SMA 200; MACD histogram is positive — rising momentum; Price is above the SAR point — uptrend.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: ATR: 4.4% of price; Calmar: 0.15 (3y annualized return 7.8% / max drawdown 52.6%); Price is below the 50-day average.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for GILT.TA.
Full breakdown of every data type and its source: Data Sources · Methodology