Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Industrials · ·
$1,266.61
▲ $4.00 (+0.3%)
Market data updated: 09/19 03:28 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
$59.66B
Day Range
$1,252.10 - $1,270.64
52-Week Range
$906.52 - $1,419.91
Beta
—
Next Earnings
04.11.2026
Support
$1,250.60
Resistance
$1,419.91
GWW is a stock from the Industrials sector — Manufacturing, aerospace, defense, and infrastructure — closely tied to capital-investment cycles and economic growth.
+26.0% (1Y)
Strengths: 6/31 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
🟡 Mixed
Technical Trend
🔴 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: $429.92 vs. price $1,266.61 (-66.1%)
Fair Value
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
84/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
91/100
Analog Quality
+4.8%
Median 40D Outcome
65/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
60%
+5.3% … +8.3%
🟡 Base
7%
-0.3% … -0.3%
🔴 Bearish
33%
-6.0% … -2.3%
Typical timeframe (based on real historical rates clearing a 60% bar): 5 trading days.
📌 Bottom line: Out of 15 similar historical cases for this stock, 60% (95% CI 36%–80%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of +4.0%.
Echo #1 — Momentum Breakout
6 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 | 60% (36%–80%) | +2.4% | -0.7% … +3.4% | +0.3% |
| 10D | 60% (36%–80%) | +2.7% | -1.7% … +5.0% | +0.7% |
| 20D | 60% (36%–80%) | +4.0% | -2.2% … +7.6% | +1.9% |
| 40D | 67% (42%–85%) | +4.8% | -0.6% … +10.9% | +4.4% |
| 60D | 73% (48%–89%) | +8.4% | +2.4% … +13.8% | +6.9% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-05-02 | 84/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -0.3% | +4.6% |
| 2024-05-31 | 84/100 | Consolidation | -2.7% | +5.0% |
| 2021-08-23 | 82/100 | Consolidation | -7.2% | +13.3% |
| 2021-08-06 | 82/100 | Consolidation | -2.1% | +6.7% |
| 2022-02-08 | 81/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +1.1% | +0.2% |
| 2022-02-24 | 81/100 | Consolidation | +7.5% | -0.4% |
| 2021-06-30 | 79/100 | Consolidation | +5.3% | -7.5% |
| 2026-03-24 | 78/100 | Consolidation | +8.3% | +28.2% |
| 2024-07-11 | 78/100 | Consolidation | +7.5% | +14.3% |
| 2025-01-15 | 78/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -6.0% | -9.1% |
| 2023-01-03 | 78/100 | Consolidation | +7.6% | +20.4% |
| 2023-09-01 | 78/100 | Consolidation | -2.3% | +9.1% |
| 2023-06-01 | 78/100 | Consolidation | +20.3% | +8.4% |
| 2024-06-21 | 77/100 | Consolidation | +4.0% | +10.8% |
| 2024-09-06 | 77/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +9.0% | +26.0% |
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
50
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
58
Value
33
Momentum
29
Risk
56
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
70
Institutional
No data available
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
Not enough comparably-scored stocks yet to show similar matches.
SCANNING GWW...
Recent media coverage of W.W. Grainger (GWW) has centered on its position within the broader industrial services sector, which faces economic headwinds. Analysts highlight its resilience amid industry challenges, noting cautious optimism due to its strong long-term performance—though recent valuations suggest the stock may be overpriced relative to cash flow and earnings. Discussions also emphasize its role in the industrials sector amid broader economic uncertainty and mixed investor sentiment.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about W. W. Grainger. 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)
40
Psychology
75
Fundamentals
70
Technical
29
Valuation
33
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.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Price (3M)
-7%
Market Narrative
73
Fundamental Reality
40
Narrative Gap
+33
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant anchoring behavior (score 55) reflects traders’ focus on the 2.2% support level, implying a reluctance to deviate from this near-term reference. Meanwhile, elevated euphoria (35) and overconfidence (45)—despite weak momentum and extreme valuation—suggest some investors remain detached from current price action. The narrative gap (32) further hints at a disconnect between market perception and fundamentals. The key question is whether traders will break free from the support anchor or double down, given the persistent valuation optimism.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 11:31 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"GWW... are navigating the challenges effectively"
"investors seem to be forecasting a downturn"
"the stock is rich compared with an intrinsic value estimate"
"Grainger is deepening regional coverage to support..."
📈 12D 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 — 91/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham — 24/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for GWW reflects a clash between defensive, liquidity-focused strategies and more growth-oriented or market-critical frameworks. Walter Bagehot’s high score and strong liquidity verdict suggest he’d prioritize the company’s resilience in a crisis, while Benjamin Graham’s near-zero score indicates it fails his core defensive metrics—like earnings stability and low debt—making it unattractive for his strict valuation discipline. Meanwhile, methodologies like Peter Lynch’s and Philip Fisher’s low scores imply the stock lacks the standout growth or quality traits they demanded, whereas Gerald M. Loeb’s moderate score hints at a cautious but not dismissive view of its capital-preservation potential. The contrast between Bagehot’s liquidity optimism and Graham’s defensive skepticism highlights whether the stock’s strengths lie in stability or speculative upside, while the lower scores from Fisher and Lynch underscore a broader skepticism about its long-term fundamentals.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 91
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 77
Strong liquidity — would likely survive a real credit squeeze
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟢 66
Reasonable capital-preservation profile
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)
🟡 64
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 58
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 57
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 48
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 47
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 45
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
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)
🟡 41
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 41
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)
🟡 37
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
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 31
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 31
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 24
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 a downtrend (1 bullish · 7 bearish · 3 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
39.1%
Operating Margin
13.9%
Net Margin
9.5%
EBITDA Margin
15.7%
ROE
45.7%
ROA
19.0%
ROIC
—
EPS
$35.47
Cash
$585.00M
Total Debt
$2.49B
Current Ratio
2.83
Debt/Equity
0.67
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 10.8.2026 | $2.490 |
| 11.5.2026 | $2.490 |
| 10.5.2026 | $2.490 |
| 9.2.2026 | $2.260 |
| 8.2.2026 | $2.260 |
| 10.11.2025 | $2.260 |
| 9.11.2025 | $2.260 |
| 11.8.2025 | $2.260 |
| 10.8.2025 | $2.260 |
| 12.5.2025 | $2.260 |
| 11.5.2025 | $2.260 |
| 10.2.2025 | $2.050 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$1,266.61
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$429.92
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-66.1%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
5.6%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 5.6% | $1.41B | $1.29B |
| 2 | 4.9% | $1.47B | $1.24B |
| 3 | 4.1% | $1.53B | $1.18B |
| 4 | 3.3% | $1.58B | $1.12B |
| 5 | 2.5% | $1.62B | $1.06B |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$1.33B
Terminal Value
$25.61B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$16.65B
Enterprise Value
$22.54B
Net Debt
$1.90B
Equity Value
$20.64B
*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
$77.83
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$64.81
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 11 positive, 7 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
SeekingAlpha · 18.9.2026
Benzinga · 15.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 13.9.2026
24/7 Wall St. · 13.9.2026
Yahoo · 13.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
Barchart · 9.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 9.9.2026
Benzinga · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
StockStory · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
Zacks · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
Zacks · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
StockStory · 4.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
Zacks · 3.9.2026
W. W. Grainger (GWW) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 50/100, 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.
GWW currently scores 50/100 (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, GWW's estimated fair value is $429.92, which is 66.1% below the current price of $1,266.61. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
GWW's technical score is 29/100, 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; Return on equity (ROE): 45.7% — strong; Current ratio: 2.83.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $429.92 vs. price $1,266.61 (-66.1%); Earnings per share (EPS) growth: -8.6%; Free cash flow growth: -15.2%.
Yes — GWW 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 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Watson Lucas E | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.9.2026 | 12 | +12 | $1,309.49 |
| Jaspon Katherine D. | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.9.2026 | 4 | +4 | $1,309.49 |
| White Steven Andrew | Gift | 1.9.2026 | 5 | -5 | — |
| Adkins Rodney C | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.9.2026 | 12 | +12 | $1,309.49 |
| Williams Susan Slavik | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.9.2026 | 4 | +4 | $1,309.49 |
| NOVICH NEIL S | Gift | 1.9.2026 | 64 | +64 | — |
| White Steven Andrew | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.9.2026 | 5 | +5 | $1,309.49 |
| Miller Cindy J | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.9.2026 | 1 | +1 | $1,309.49 |
| Davis George S | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.9.2026 | 2 | +2 | $1,309.49 |
| KLEIN CHRISTOPHER J | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.9.2026 | 2 | +2 | $1,309.49 |
| SANTI ERNEST SCOTT | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.9.2026 | 20 | +20 | $1,309.49 |
| Jaspon Katherine D. | Gift | 1.9.2026 | 4 | +4 | — |
| Jaspon Katherine D. | Gift | 1.9.2026 | 4 | -4 | — |
| NOVICH NEIL S | Gift | 1.9.2026 | 64 | -64 | — |
| Perez Beatriz R | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.9.2026 | 10 | +10 | $1,309.49 |
| NOVICH NEIL S | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.9.2026 | 64 | +64 | $1,309.49 |
| White Steven Andrew | Gift | 1.9.2026 | 5 | +5 | — |
| NOVICH NEIL S | Gift | 5.6.2026 | 33,644 | -33,644 | — |
| NOVICH NEIL S | Gift | 5.6.2026 | 33,644 | +33,644 | — |
| NOVICH NEIL S | Gift | 5.6.2026 | 0 | -33,644 | — |
| NOVICH NEIL S | Gift | 5.6.2026 | 33,644 | +33,644 | — |
| Jaspon Katherine D. | Gift | 1.6.2026 | 3 | -3 | — |
| Perez Beatriz R | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.6.2026 | 11 | +11 | $1,234.24 |
| KLEIN CHRISTOPHER J | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.6.2026 | 1 | +1 | $1,234.24 |
| Davis George S | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.6.2026 | 3 | +3 | $1,234.24 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
1,044,893 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 1,062,603 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
56.6% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 52.1% 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