Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Technology · ·
$49.23
▼ $1.04 (-2.1%)
Market data updated: 09/19 02:59 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
$49.07 - $50.67
52-Week Range
$18.73 - $55.55
Beta
—
Next Earnings
07.12.2026
Support
$29.85
Resistance
$55.55
GTLB is a stock from the Technology sector — Software, hardware, chip, and computing-services companies — revenue tied to the pace of innovation and upgrade cycles.
-1.6% (1Y)
Strengths: 13/29 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
🟢 Bullish
Insiders
🟡 Mixed
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Revenue growth (last year)
Revenue growth (last year): 25.8%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $33.97 vs. price $49.23 (-31.0%)
Fair Value
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
54
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 · $49.31
Evidence: FOMO score jumped from 50 to 85 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
54
Quality
58
Value
38
Momentum
65
Risk
40
Sentiment
92
Fundamental
35
Institutional
50
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 media coverage of GitLab Inc. highlights its strong financial performance and market momentum, particularly in Q2 FY2027. The company reported **21.3% revenue growth**, surpassed earnings estimates, and raised its full-year guidance, driven by its **AI-powered tools** and the **Flex consumption pricing model**. Analysts note a **reacceleration in growth**, with AI driving developer demand and revenue, while broader fears of a SaaS downturn appear to be fading, fueling a **35% stock surge in August** and continued gains.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about GitLab Inc.. News trend score: 92. Reason: 12 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 5 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
53
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
41
Psychology
63
Fundamentals
35
Technical
65
Valuation
38
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.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price (3M)
+85%
Market Narrative
84
Fundamental Reality
41
Narrative Gap
+43
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior suggests a dominant FOMO-driven rally, amplified by euphoric overvaluation (+70.5% above 200-day avg) and extreme sentiment (100/100). Overconfidence in valuation (+40% above DCF) and detached narratives (gap: 55) imply investors may ignore fundamental misalignment. The key question: *Will momentum sustain despite overvaluation, or will euphoria trigger a re-evaluation?*
Updated: 09/08/2026, 04:03 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"GitLab's latest quarterly report arrived with more evidence that AI is powering wins for the company"
"GitLab posted 21.3% revenue growth and beat earnings estimates in Q2 FY2027"
"As fears of a SaaSpocalypse faded, the software development specialist took flight"
"GitLab’s updated fair value estimate has shifted from US$33.61 to US$53.57"
📈 13D 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
Walter Bagehot — 87/100
🔴 Weakest match
Howard Marks — 16/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Based on the documented principles of the investors, the model estimates that Bagehot, Fisher and Livermore view GTLB quite favorably, reflected in scores above 70 and verdicts highlighting strong liquidity, exceptional quality and a positive price trend. In contrast, more growth‑oriented or valuation‑sensitive frameworks such as Lynch, Schwager, Housel and Graham’s Enterprising approach assign mid‑range scores around the mid‑40s, suggesting mixed or modest appeal and concerns that the price already reflects much of the growth. The most conservative and contrarian criteria—Graham’s defensive screen, Marks’s risk/valuation lens, Veblen’s cultural critique and Mackay’s crowd‑delusion warning—produce the lowest scores (13‑30), indicating serious doubts about safety, cycle positioning, and speculative motivations. This spread illustrates how liquidity and trend‑focused methods can generate optimism, while deep‑value and market‑cycle analyses generate caution.
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 87
Strong liquidity — would likely survive a real credit squeeze
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟢 75
Exceptional company quality by Fisher's standards
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 64
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 63
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 48
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)
🟡 46
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 42
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 40
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 30
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 29
Looks late-cycle — the position Marks would treat with extra caution
Key question
Where are we in the cycle right now — near a hot extreme, or a cold one?
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🔴 21
Pattern consistent with a crowd delusion Mackay would flag
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 16
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
Based on the last 281 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟢 Most indicators support an uptrend (7 bullish · 4 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.
Low 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
87.4%
Operating Margin
-7.4%
Net Margin
-5.9%
EBITDA Margin
-7.0%
ROE
-5.6%
ROA
-3.2%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$0.34
Cash
$229.58M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
2.54
Debt/Equity
—
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$49.23
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$33.97
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-31.0%
🔴 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% | $277.54M | $254.62M |
| 2 | 19.4% | $331.31M | $278.86M |
| 3 | 13.8% | $376.86M | $291.01M |
| 4 | 8.1% | $407.48M | $288.67M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $417.67M | $271.46M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$222.03M
Terminal Value
$6.59B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$4.28B
Enterprise Value
$5.67B
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$5.67B
*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
$5.94
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$5.78
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 12 positive, 3 neutral, 5 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
StockStory · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
StockStory · 15.9.2026
MT Newswires · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
StockStory · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Insider Monkey · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
Motley Fool · 8.9.2026
Benzinga · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 6.9.2026
Motley Fool · 6.9.2026
Yahoo · 6.9.2026
GitLab Inc. (GTLB) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 54/100, 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.
GTLB currently scores 54/100 (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.
Per StockIQ's DCF model, GTLB's estimated fair value is $33.97, which is 31.0% below the current price of $49.23. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
GTLB's technical score is 65/100, 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: Revenue growth (last year): 25.8%; Free cash flow growth: 427.8%; Operating margin is stable or improving over time.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $33.97 vs. price $49.23 (-31.0%); Operating margin: -7.4% (negative); Net margin: -5.9% (negative).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for GTLB.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 2 purchases and 2 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SULLIVAN GODFREY | Conversion of Derivative Security | 21.8.2026 | 154,874 | +12,500 | — |
| SULLIVAN GODFREY | Conversion of Derivative Security | 21.8.2026 | 0 | -12,500 | — |
| SULLIVAN GODFREY | Conversion of Derivative Security | 21.8.2026 | 12,500 | -12,500 | — |
| SULLIVAN GODFREY | Conversion of Derivative Security | 21.8.2026 | 12,500 | +12,500 | — |
| Mundy Simon | Open Market Sale | 7.8.2026 | 8,725 | -8,725 | $38.00 |
| Mundy Simon | Open Market Sale | 7.8.2026 | 105,332 | -8,725 | $38.00 |
| Lloyd Thomas J. | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.7.2026 | 279,627 | +279,627 | — |
| Lloyd Thomas J. | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.7.2026 | 279,627 | +279,627 | — |
| Staples William | Open Market Purchase | 30.6.2026 | 4,188 | +4,188 | $29.36 |
| Staples William | Open Market Purchase | 30.6.2026 | 758,828 | +4,188 | $29.36 |
| Mundy Simon | Tax Withholding in Shares | 22.6.2026 | 1,514 | -1,514 | $26.17 |
| Mundy Simon | Tax Withholding in Shares | 22.6.2026 | 114,057 | -1,514 | $26.17 |
| Schulman Robin | Tax Withholding in Shares | 17.6.2026 | 7,839 | -7,839 | $27.29 |
| Staples William | Tax Withholding in Shares | 17.6.2026 | 26,425 | -26,425 | $28.31 |
| Steward Ian | Tax Withholding in Shares | 17.6.2026 | 10,961 | -10,961 | $27.29 |
| Mundy Simon | Tax Withholding in Shares | 17.6.2026 | 2,394 | -2,394 | $27.29 |
| BLASING KAREN | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.6.2026 | 7,555 | +7,555 | — |
| BOSTROM SUSAN L | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.6.2026 | 7,555 | +7,555 | — |
| SULLIVAN GODFREY | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.6.2026 | 7,555 | +7,555 | — |
| Bedi Sundeep | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.6.2026 | 7,555 | +7,555 | — |
| HENSHALL DAVID J | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.6.2026 | 7,555 | +7,555 | — |
| HENSHALL DAVID J | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.6.2026 | 17,879 | +7,555 | — |
| BOSTROM SUSAN L | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.6.2026 | 24,874 | +7,555 | — |
| SULLIVAN GODFREY | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.6.2026 | 142,374 | +7,555 | — |
| BLASING KAREN | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.6.2026 | 104,944 | +7,555 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
15,863,325 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 19,146,321 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
36.9% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 35.6% 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