Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$109.35
▲ $4.62 (+4.4%)
Market data updated: 09/19 02:31 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
$1.61B
Day Range
$105.04 - $110.39
52-Week Range
$26.20 - $155.29
Beta
—
Next Earnings
12.11.2026
Support
$77.50
Resistance
$131.01
INBX 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.
+294.7% (1Y)
Strengths: 10/30 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
🟡 Mixed
Insiders
🟢 Bullish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Revenue growth (last year)
Revenue growth (last year): 550.0%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: -$212.37 vs. price $109.35 (-294.2%)
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
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
54
Quality
58
Value
38
Momentum
52
Risk
50
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
26
Institutional
53
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 Inhibrx Biosciences has centered on its **Phase 2 HexAgon study results** for **INBRX-106**, a hexavalent OX40 agonist combined with pembrolizumab in **head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC)**. The drug nearly doubled the **objective response rate (48%)** compared to pembrolizumab alone, with an **interim median progression-free survival (PFS) of 9.6 months**. The company announced these findings on September 8, 2026, following a live webcast presentation, sparking a **6% stock price increase** and discussions about potential **trial expansions**.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Inhibrx Biosciences, Inc.. News trend score: 100. Reason: 10 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 0 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
30
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
64
Psychology
81
Fundamentals
26
Technical
52
Valuation
38
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
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, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price (3M)
+13%
Market Narrative
53
Fundamental Reality
64
Narrative Gap
-11
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior for INBX suggests a dominant euphoric state, where price momentum and sentiment far outpace fundamentals. The narrative gap (17 points) implies traders may be overestimating positive catalysts. Overconfidence is also elevated, as price gains exceed earnings growth, a classic disconnect. The key question is whether this momentum remains self-sustaining or if fundamentals will eventually reassert themselves. The absence of panic selling despite high volatility hints at speculative positioning rather than distress.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 05:12 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"nearly doubles response rate and achieves interim median PFS of 9.6 months in Phase 2 HNSCC study"
"will host a live webcast presentation ... to provide primary endpoint results"
"shares gained 6% after the biotechnology company reported encouraging Phase 2 results"
📈 9D 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 — 81/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham — 30/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide among methodologies, with Philip Fisher standing out as the lone strong advocate, calling it an 'exceptional company quality' pick, while the rest of the spectrum ranges from cautious to outright dismissive. Fisher’s high score reflects his focus on long-term industry leadership and management excellence, which likely aligns well with INBX’s fundamentals. In contrast, value-oriented investors like Benjamin Graham and his Enterprising Investor counterpart reject it outright, with Graham’s strict defensive criteria and the looser Enterprising Investor bar both failing to find sufficient margin of safety. Meanwhile, market-savvy skeptics like Gerald M. Loeb, Howard Marks, and Morgan Housel flag red flags—whether volatility, risk, or late-cycle positioning—that would deter them from holding, while technical traders like Jesse Livermore and Jack Schwager see no clear trend or edge. Even growth-focused investors like Peter Lynch and Samuel Armstrong Nelson fall short, with neither finding enough conviction to justify a long-term hold, illustrating how divergent priorities—quality, value, timing, or risk—can lead to wildly different conclusions.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 81
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
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 69
Adequate but not exceptional liquidity
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 59
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 48
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
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
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 40
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 39
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 37
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 37
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 35
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 33
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 31
No real setup here — the discipline Schwager's wizards shared would say stay out
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 31
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
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 30
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 281 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟡 Indicators are mixed — no clear bias (4 bullish · 5 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 uptrend 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
—
Operating Margin
-10386.5%
Net Margin
-10773.5%
EBITDA Margin
-10195.5%
ROE
-1752.2%
ROA
-95.6%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$9.04
Cash
$124.22M
Total Debt
$100.56M
Current Ratio
3.93
Debt/Equity
12.58
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$109.35
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$212.37
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-294.2%
🔴 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% | $-162.28M | $-148.88M |
| 2 | 19.4% | $-193.72M | $-163.05M |
| 3 | 13.8% | $-220.36M | $-170.16M |
| 4 | 8.1% | $-238.26M | $-168.79M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-244.22M | $-158.73M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-129.82M
Terminal Value
$-3.85B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-2.50B
Enterprise Value
$-3.31B
Net Debt
$-23.66M
Equity Value
$-3.29B
*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
$0.52
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$0.52
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 10 positive, 10 neutral, 0 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 14.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 9.9.2026
ChartMill · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
InvestorsHub · 8.9.2026
MT Newswires · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
PR Newswire · 8.9.2026
Benzinga · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
PR Newswire · 4.9.2026
Benzinga · 4.9.2026
Benzinga · 24.8.2026
PR Newswire · 13.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 25.7.2026
PR Newswire · 16.7.2026
Zacks · 9.7.2026
PR Newswire · 15.6.2026
PR Newswire · 14.5.2026
Inhibrx Biosciences, Inc. (INBX) 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.
INBX 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, INBX's estimated fair value is -$212.37, which is 294.2% below the current price of $109.35. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
INBX's technical score is 52/100, 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: Revenue growth (last year): 550.0%; Free cash flow growth: 34.1%; Operating margin is stable or improving over time.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: -$212.37 vs. price $109.35 (-294.2%); Operating margin: -10386.5% (negative); Net margin: -10773.5% (negative).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for INBX.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 8 purchases and 7 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MANHARD KIMBERLY | Open Market Sale | 9.9.2026 | 500 | -500 | $115.80 |
| MANHARD KIMBERLY | Open Market Sale | 8.9.2026 | 500 | -500 | $115.14 |
| Lappe Mark | Open Market Purchase | 8.9.2026 | 6,605 | +6,605 | $100.64 |
| Lappe Mark | Open Market Purchase | 8.9.2026 | 500 | +500 | $108.24 |
| Lappe Mark | Open Market Purchase | 8.9.2026 | 9,681 | +9,681 | $112.28 |
| Lappe Mark | Open Market Purchase | 8.9.2026 | 5,895 | +5,895 | $99.29 |
| Lappe Mark | Open Market Purchase | 8.9.2026 | 1,219 | +1,219 | $111.88 |
| FORSYTH DOUGLAS | Open Market Purchase | 8.9.2026 | 2,500 | +2,500 | $114.65 |
| Lappe Mark | Open Market Purchase | 8.9.2026 | 1,100 | +1,100 | $107.12 |
| Kayyem Jon Faiz | Open Market Purchase | 8.9.2026 | 5,000 | +5,000 | $113.52 |
| Kayyem Jon Faiz | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.6.2026 | 15,000 | +15,000 | — |
| MANHARD KIMBERLY | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.6.2026 | 15,000 | +15,000 | — |
| FORSYTH DOUGLAS | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.6.2026 | 15,000 | +15,000 | — |
| Vuori Kristiina MD | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.6.2026 | 15,000 | +15,000 | — |
| MANHARD KIMBERLY | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.6.2026 | 15,000 | +15,000 | — |
| FORSYTH DOUGLAS | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.6.2026 | 15,000 | +15,000 | — |
| Kayyem Jon Faiz | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.6.2026 | 15,000 | +15,000 | — |
| Vuori Kristiina MD | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.6.2026 | 15,000 | +15,000 | — |
| Matly David | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.4.2026 | 50,000 | +50,000 | — |
| Matly David | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.4.2026 | 50,000 | +50,000 | — |
| VIKING GLOBAL INVESTORS LP | Open Market Sale | 7.10.2025 | 16,315 | -16,315 | $32.25 |
| VIKING GLOBAL INVESTORS LP | Open Market Sale | 7.10.2025 | 25,042 | -25,042 | $32.25 |
| VIKING GLOBAL INVESTORS LP | Open Market Sale | 7.10.2025 | 308,643 | -308,643 | $32.25 |
| VIKING GLOBAL INVESTORS LP | Open Market Sale | 7.10.2025 | 1,267,823 | -308,643 | $32.25 |
| VIKING GLOBAL INVESTORS LP | Open Market Sale | 7.10.2025 | 67,018 | -16,315 | $32.25 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
3,297,743 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 3,341,210 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
57.6% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 68.0% 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