Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Information Technology · ·
$185.78
▼ $2.02 (-1.1%)
Market data updated: 09/19 02:48 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/18/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
$11.73B
Day Range
$183.53 - $189.39
52-Week Range
$124.25 - $265.85
Beta
—
Next Earnings
02.11.2026
Support
$128.78
Resistance
$203.03
IT is a stock from the Technology sector — Software, hardware, chip, and computing-services companies — revenue tied to the pace of innovation and upgrade cycles.
-26.0% (1Y)
Strengths: 9/30 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
🟢 Bullish
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $248.03 vs. price $185.78 (+33.5%)
Fair Value
Biggest negative driver
Daily volatility (ATR)
ATR: 4.7% of price
Risk
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
76/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
86/100
Analog Quality
+2.0%
Median 40D Outcome
55/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
53%
+3.8% … +10.8%
🟡 Base
7%
+0.8% … +0.8%
🔴 Bearish
40%
-7.5% … -5.2%
Typical timeframe (based on real historical rates clearing a 60% bar): 40 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 +1.1%.
Echo #1 — Oversold Reversal
1 occurrence(s) · 0% 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 | 33% (15%–58%) | -1.9% | -2.9% … +1.8% | +0.4% |
| 10D | 53% (30%–75%) | +1.3% | -4.6% … +4.8% | +0.9% |
| 20D | 53% (30%–75%) | +1.1% | -5.9% … +5.3% | +1.7% |
| 40D | 67% (42%–85%) | +2.0% | -4.6% … +7.9% | +2.2% |
| 60D | 60% (36%–80%) | +8.9% | -6.4% … +14.5% | +3.0% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-06-22 | 76/100 | Consolidation | +1.1% | +8.9% |
| 2020-05-21 | 73/100 | Consolidation | +3.2% | +10.1% |
| 2020-07-17 | 70/100 | Consolidation | +5.2% | +3.0% |
| 2022-06-01 | 68/100 | Downtrend | -7.3% | +13.1% |
| 2025-04-14 | 68/100 | Downtrend | +10.0% | -8.2% |
| 2020-10-07 | 67/100 | Consolidation | +13.2% | +25.8% |
| 2022-03-14 | 67/100 | Downtrend | +5.4% | -4.6% |
| 2025-05-29 | 66/100 | Consolidation | -7.5% | -44.6% |
| 2022-06-27 | 66/100 | Downtrend | +0.8% | +15.9% |
| 2025-07-01 | 66/100 | Downtrend | -15.5% | -35.5% |
| 2022-09-13 | 65/100 | Uptrend | -4.5% | +13.2% |
| 2022-02-01 | 64/100 | Consolidation | -4.0% | +1.0% |
| 2020-10-21 | 64/100 | Consolidation | +20.4% | +24.7% |
| 2022-05-17 | 64/100 | Downtrend | -7.5% | +20.9% |
| 2025-05-01 | 63/100 | Downtrend | +4.0% | -16.5% |
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 XLK (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
59
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
62
Momentum
66
Risk
20
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
58
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING IT...
Recent media coverage of Gartner has primarily focused on its strong recent stock performance, with headlines highlighting a **31.2% surge last month** driven by a positive quarterly report that shifted investor sentiment. Analysts also note the stock appears **undervalued relative to fair value**, despite a **47% decline over three years**, positioning it as a potential value opportunity. While broader market themes like **rate-hike fears** dominate financial discussions, Gartner’s AI research and its role in addressing the **"agent production gap"**—where high ROI AI implementations struggle to scale—have been briefly referenced as key strategic areas.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Gartner. News trend score: 100. Reason: 12 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 3 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
16
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
40
Psychology
57
Fundamentals
58
Technical
66
Valuation
62
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own 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 price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price (3M)
+47%
Market Narrative
46
Fundamental Reality
40
Narrative Gap
+6
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior for IT suggests a **detached valuation optimism** (Euphoria) despite clear technical and fundamental contradictions. The stock’s 15.3% premium to its 200-day average, combined with a -30% DCF discount, indicates investors may be anchoring to past highs or ignoring valuation metrics. Meanwhile, the absence of extreme volatility (0.87x ATR) and neutral RSI (44) mitigates panic but doesn’t confirm FOMO or herding. The key open question is whether this disconnect between price and fundamentals will persist or if a catalyst—like earnings or sector shifts—will force a reassessment of the narrative gap (-6).
Updated: 09/09/2026, 01:29 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Gartner shares have declined about 47% over the past 3 years"
"only 22% of organizations have successfully scaled AI across multiple business units"
"Gartner's latest quarterly report arrived with news that weakened the bearish narrative"
"AI agents deliver a 171% ROI, yet many organizations struggle to move beyond pilot stages"
📈 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
Charles Mackay — 68/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock’s starkly divided verdicts reflect deep methodological contrasts: Samuel Armstrong Nelson’s high score (90) suggests a cyclical opportunity near oversold territory, while the majority of methodologies—especially Graham, Fisher, and Lynch—reject it outright due to perceived risks or lack of fundamental quality. The divide between cyclical/momentum-driven thinkers (like Nelson and Mackay) and value/growth purists (Graham, Fisher, Lynch) is stark, with the latter dismissing it for failing defensive metrics or growth-at-a-reasonable-price thresholds. Even the market-neutral approaches (Malkiel/Bogle, Marks) downgrade it, questioning whether active selection adds value here. Meanwhile, volatility-sensitive investors (Housel, Loeb) and liquidity-focused ones (Bagehot) flag systemic risks that align with Livermore’s trend-following caution. The spectrum spans from ‘favorable cycle positioning’ to ‘capital-threatening volatility,’ illustrating how context—be it macro trends, business quality, or risk tolerance—drastically reshapes the same data.
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 68
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)
🟡 63
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 55
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 48
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 44
Mixed — a good business, but expectations may already be high
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 43
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 36
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 33
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
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
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 28
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🔴 27
Doesn't show the stability Smith's long-term case requires
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)
🔴 21
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 10
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 8
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 8
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
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?
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 an uptrend (5 bullish · 2 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 uptrend 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
68.8%
Operating Margin
15.8%
Net Margin
11.2%
EBITDA Margin
18.9%
ROE
228.0%
ROA
9.0%
ROIC
—
EPS
$9.68
Cash
$1.72B
Total Debt
$2.98B
Current Ratio
1.00
Debt/Equity
9.32
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$185.78
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$248.03
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
+33.5%
🟢 Appears cheap relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
5.9%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 5.9% | $1.24B | $1.14B |
| 2 | 5.0% | $1.31B | $1.10B |
| 3 | 4.2% | $1.36B | $1.05B |
| 4 | 3.3% | $1.41B | $996.98M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $1.44B | $937.52M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$1.18B
Terminal Value
$22.75B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$14.78B
Enterprise Value
$20.01B
Net Debt
$1.26B
Equity Value
$18.75B
*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
$4.23
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$36.47
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 12 positive, 5 neutral, 3 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Benzinga · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
ChartMill · 14.9.2026
Gartner (IT) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 59/100, 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.
IT currently scores 59/100 (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, IT's estimated fair value is $248.03, which is 33.5% above the current price of $185.78. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
IT's technical score is 66/100, 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: Estimated fair value: $248.03 vs. price $185.78 (+33.5%); Operating margin is stable or improving over time; Return on equity (ROE): 228.0% — strong.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: ATR: 4.7% of price; Current ratio: 1.00; Calmar: -0.24 (3y annualized return -18.9% / max drawdown 77.2%).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for IT.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 10 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rupani Altaf | Other Transaction | 31.8.2026 | 19 | +19 | $188.20 |
| Kranich Robin B | Other Transaction | 31.8.2026 | 31 | +31 | $188.20 |
| HALL EUGENE A | Other Transaction | 31.8.2026 | 31 | +31 | $188.20 |
| Safian Craig | Other Transaction | 31.8.2026 | 18 | +18 | $188.20 |
| Kranich Robin B | Open Market Sale | 27.8.2026 | 20,358 | -3,278 | $196.50 |
| Kranich Robin B | Open Market Sale | 27.8.2026 | 3,278 | -3,278 | $196.50 |
| Jain Akhil | Open Market Sale | 24.8.2026 | 8,130 | -700 | $201.73 |
| Jain Akhil | Open Market Sale | 24.8.2026 | 700 | -700 | $201.73 |
| Genovese Yvonne | Open Market Sale | 10.8.2026 | 1,205 | -1,205 | $190.06 |
| Genovese Yvonne | Open Market Sale | 10.8.2026 | 6,208 | -1,205 | $190.06 |
| FUCHS ANNE SUTHERLAND | Open Market Sale | 7.8.2026 | 860 | -860 | $184.30 |
| Herkes Claire | Open Market Sale | 7.8.2026 | 1,039 | -1,039 | $190.71 |
| FUCHS ANNE SUTHERLAND | Open Market Sale | 7.8.2026 | 8,097 | -860 | $184.30 |
| Herkes Claire | Open Market Sale | 7.8.2026 | 5,252 | -1,039 | $190.71 |
| CESAN RAUL E | Other Transaction | 1.7.2026 | 187 | +187 | — |
| PAGLIUCA STEPHEN G | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 187 | +187 | $133.76 |
| FERGUSON DIANA SUE | Other Transaction | 1.7.2026 | 201 | -201 | — |
| Serra Eileen | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 215 | +215 | $133.76 |
| GUTIERREZ JOSE M | Other Transaction | 1.7.2026 | 112 | -112 | — |
| FUCHS ANNE SUTHERLAND | Other Transaction | 1.7.2026 | 100 | -100 | — |
| PAGLIUCA STEPHEN G | Other Transaction | 1.7.2026 | 187 | +187 | — |
| FUCHS ANNE SUTHERLAND | Other Transaction | 1.7.2026 | 100 | +100 | — |
| Bisson Peter | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 196 | +196 | $133.76 |
| GUTIERREZ JOSE M | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 112 | +112 | $133.76 |
| CESAN RAUL E | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 187 | +187 | $133.76 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
7,963,817 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 9,650,138 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
63.9% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 68.1% 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