Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Industrials · ·
$206.46
▼ $0.03 (-0.0%)
Market data updated: 09/18 08:56 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/18/2026
News analyzed: 09/18/2026
Market Cap
$65.44B
Day Range
$204.26 - $207.48
52-Week Range
$195.87 - $260.28
Beta
—
Next Earnings
21.10.2026
Support
$196.98
Resistance
$252.00
HON is a stock from the Industrials sector — Manufacturing, aerospace, defense, and infrastructure — closely tied to capital-investment cycles and economic growth.
-1.3% (1Y)
Strengths: 4/30 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
🔴 Bearish
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Return on equity (ROE)
Return on equity (ROE): 34.0% — strong
Fundamental
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $96.66 vs. price $206.46 (-53.2%)
Fair Value
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
75/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
88/100
Analog Quality
+2.1%
Median 40D Outcome
65/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
53%
+3.2% … +8.6%
🟡 Base
13%
+0.1% … +0.7%
🔴 Bearish
33%
-5.6% … -2.4%
Typical timeframe (based on real historical rates clearing a 60% bar): 10 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 +1.6%.
Echo #1 — Oversold Reversal
5 occurrence(s) · 80% historical success
Echo #2 — Momentum Breakout
3 occurrence(s) · 33% 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 | 47% (25%–70%) | -0.2% | -1.1% … +1.8% | +0.3% |
| 10D | 60% (36%–80%) | +1.9% | -0.9% … +2.8% | +0.5% |
| 20D | 53% (30%–75%) | +1.6% | -1.8% … +5.2% | +0.7% |
| 40D | 73% (48%–89%) | +2.1% | -0.1% … +5.9% | +0.9% |
| 60D | 67% (42%–85%) | +2.7% | -0.7% … +8.2% | +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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-07-12 | 75/100 | Downtrend | +11.8% | +2.4% |
| 2021-12-13 | 74/100 | Downtrend | +3.4% | -11.9% |
| 2018-11-01 | 73/100 | Consolidation | +1.6% | -0.6% |
| 2023-03-22 | 72/100 | ✓ Downtrend | +5.1% | +8.4% |
| 2018-12-04 | 72/100 | Downtrend | -5.6% | +8.0% |
| 2022-10-07 | 72/100 | Downtrend | +21.3% | +22.5% |
| 2018-04-04 | 71/100 | Consolidation | -1.3% | -1.2% |
| 2025-02-24 | 70/100 | Consolidation | +0.9% | +7.2% |
| 2022-03-01 | 69/100 | Downtrend | +7.6% | +3.7% |
| 2023-03-07 | 69/100 | Consolidation | -2.4% | -0.9% |
| 2023-10-12 | 69/100 | ✓ Downtrend | -0.1% | +9.6% |
| 2026-03-31 | 69/100 | Consolidation | -7.0% | +2.7% |
| 2025-11-28 | 68/100 | Downtrend | +2.5% | +25.3% |
| 2025-09-17 | 67/100 | Downtrend | -4.3% | -2.8% |
| 2026-05-19 | 67/100 | Consolidation | +5.3% | +2.7% |
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
49
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
42
Quality
42
Value
38
Momentum
32
Risk
36
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
63
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING HON...
Recent media coverage of Honeywell Technologies has primarily focused on its strategic restructuring into three distinct business units, reflecting its shift away from being a broad industrial conglomerate. The company’s stock and market positioning have also been scrutinized, particularly in comparisons with competitors like GE Aerospace. Additionally, while not directly about Honeywell, headlines highlight its former subsidiary Solstice Advanced Materials’ decision to abandon a $14.5 billion merger with Element Solutions, which sparked investor reactions and market volatility. No new major operational or financial developments specific to Honeywell were detailed in the sources provided.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Honeywell Technologies. News trend score: 100. Reason: 14 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 1 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
31
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
36
Psychology
50
Fundamentals
63
Technical
32
Valuation
38
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.
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
Price (3M)
-14%
Market Narrative
73
Fundamental Reality
36
Narrative Gap
+37
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s dominant anchoring behavior reflects traders’ fixation on HON’s proximity to support (1.2% away), ignoring broader dissonance between valuation (+115% vs DCF) and weak momentum. Overconfidence (45) and euphoria (35) scores, despite contradictory technicals, imply lingering optimism anchored to past levels rather than fundamentals. The narrative gap (32) further suggests traders’ perceptions (68) diverge sharply from observable reality (36). The key question: will traders break free from support anchoring, or will the gap widen as fundamentals fail to justify valuation?
Updated: 09/09/2026, 03:59 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Honeywell was a giant industrial conglomerate, but today it is three different businesses"
"Tracks 9.4 billion 2024 Passengers Across 7 Regions as 100+ Vendors Compete for Smart Airport Contracts"
📈 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
Jack Schwager — 85/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham — 3/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock splits methodologies into two starkly opposing camps: a handful of cyclical and trend-following investors see strong potential, while the majority of value, quality, and defensive frameworks flag it as risky or unattractive. Samuel Armstrong Nelson’s near-perfect score reflects his focus on oversold conditions, while Jack Schwager and Charles Mackay’s moderate approval aligns with disciplined setups and absence of crowd behavior. In contrast, Howard Marks (both cycle and valuation perspectives) and Gerald Loeb’s low scores highlight concerns about risk and valuation extremes, mirroring the caution of Benjamin Graham’s near-total rejection—his strict defensive criteria are clearly violated. Meanwhile, Fisher, Lynch, and Veblen dismiss it for lacking growth quality or signaling speculative overreach, while Bagehot’s liquidity warning underscores structural fragility. The divide underscores a core tension: cyclical or momentum-driven models see temporary undervaluation or favorable positioning, while value and quality investors prioritize fundamentals that this stock fails to meet.
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 85
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 76
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 67
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 65
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 48
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 45
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)
🟡 44
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 33
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 33
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 31
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 27
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 26
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 17
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 (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 15
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 14
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 3
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 (2 bullish · 7 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.
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
36.9%
Operating Margin
21.7%
Net Margin
12.6%
EBITDA Margin
25.4%
ROE
34.0%
ROA
6.4%
ROIC
—
EPS
$7.40
Cash
$12.49B
Total Debt
$34.94B
Current Ratio
1.30
Debt/Equity
2.51
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 14.8.2026 | $0.700 |
| 15.5.2026 | $1.248 |
| 14.5.2026 | $1.248 |
| 27.2.2026 | $1.248 |
| 26.2.2026 | $1.248 |
| 14.11.2025 | $1.248 |
| 13.11.2025 | $1.248 |
| 15.8.2025 | $1.117 |
| 14.8.2025 | $1.117 |
| 16.5.2025 | $1.117 |
| 15.5.2025 | $1.117 |
| 28.2.2025 | $1.117 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$206.46
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$96.66
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-53.2%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
2.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2.0% | $5.53B | $5.08B |
| 2 | 2.1% | $5.65B | $4.76B |
| 3 | 2.3% | $5.78B | $4.46B |
| 4 | 2.4% | $5.92B | $4.19B |
| 5 | 2.5% | $6.06B | $3.94B |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$5.42B
Terminal Value
$95.64B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$62.16B
Enterprise Value
$84.58B
Net Debt
$22.45B
Equity Value
$62.13B
*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
$21.63
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$21.64
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 14 positive, 5 neutral, 1 negative out of the last 20 articles.
ChartMill · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
ChartMill · 17.9.2026
ChartMill · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
ChartMill · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
ChartMill · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
CNBC · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
ChartMill · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Honeywell Technologies (HON) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 49/100, 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.
HON currently scores 49/100 (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, HON's estimated fair value is $96.66, which is 53.2% below the current price of $206.46. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
HON's technical score is 32/100, 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: Return on equity (ROE): 34.0% — strong; MACD histogram is positive — rising momentum; Operating margin: 21.7% — strong.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $96.66 vs. price $206.46 (-53.2%); Operating margin is eroding over time; Calmar: 0.11 (3y annualized return 2.4% / max drawdown 22.6%).
Yes — HON 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LAU PETER JAMES | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 14,233 | +14,233 | — |
| Hammoud Billal | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 14,233 | +14,233 | — |
| Reilly Jennifer J | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 3,355 | +3,355 | — |
| Mailloux Robert D. | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 5,368 | +5,368 | — |
| Masso James | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 4,067 | +4,067 | — |
| West Kenneth J | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 316 | -316 | $245.47 |
| West Kenneth J | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 2,004 | -316 | $245.47 |
| Mailloux Robert D. | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 5,368 | +5,368 | — |
| LAU PETER JAMES | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 14,233 | +14,233 | — |
| Hammoud Billal | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 14,233 | +14,233 | — |
| Masso James | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 4,067 | +4,067 | — |
| Reilly Jennifer J | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 3,355 | +3,355 | — |
| Reilly Jennifer J | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.8.2026 | 325 | -325 | $242.01 |
| Stepniak Michal | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.8.2026 | 401 | +401 | — |
| Stepniak Michal | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.8.2026 | 401 | -401 | — |
| Lu Su Ping | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.8.2026 | 382 | +382 | — |
| Lu Su Ping | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.8.2026 | 167 | -167 | $242.01 |
| Reilly Jennifer J | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.8.2026 | 747 | +747 | — |
| Lu Su Ping | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.8.2026 | 382 | -382 | — |
| Reilly Jennifer J | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.8.2026 | 747 | -747 | — |
| Stepniak Michal | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.8.2026 | 175 | -175 | $242.01 |
| Lu Su Ping | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.8.2026 | 5,708 | +382 | — |
| Lu Su Ping | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.8.2026 | 5,541 | -167 | $242.01 |
| Lu Su Ping | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.8.2026 | 371 | -382 | — |
| Stepniak Michal | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.8.2026 | 3,106 | +401 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
6,445,823 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 8,418,114 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
42.1% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 48.6% 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