Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Industrials · ·
$204.47
▲ $1.66 (+0.8%)
Market data updated: 09/19 06:06 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
$18.28B
Day Range
$201.82 - $205.51
52-Week Range
$166.96 - $230.32
Beta
—
Next Earnings
02.11.2026
Support
$188.08
Resistance
$230.32
ITT is a stock from the Industrials sector — Manufacturing, aerospace, defense, and infrastructure — closely tied to capital-investment cycles and economic growth.
+11.8% (1Y)
Strengths: 13/29 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
🟢 Bullish
Insiders
🔴 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
Earnings per share (EPS) growth
Earnings per share (EPS) growth: -3.3%
Growth
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
65
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
40
Quality
63
Value
50
Momentum
73
Risk
62
Sentiment
98
Fundamental
69
Institutional
33
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 ITT Inc. has primarily focused on its financial performance and investor appeal, particularly within the industrials sector. Analysts highlight ITT as a potential long-term value stock, praising its consistent market outperformance—including a 6.63% annualized return over 20 years—while noting its resilience amid broader economic downturns. Discussions also emphasize its dividend status and cash-generating capabilities, though comparisons with peers like CIB remain common. The company’s role in supporting physical infrastructure and its steady growth metrics are recurring themes.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about ITT Inc.. News trend score: 98. Reason: 9 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
28
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
42
Psychology
32
Fundamentals
69
Technical
73
Valuation
50
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
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)
+4%
Market Narrative
69
Fundamental Reality
42
Narrative Gap
+27
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s dominant herding behavior suggests traders are aligning with peer group movements, despite ITT’s modest underperformance. Extreme positive sentiment (98/100) and neutral technicals (RSI 45, Bollinger %B 0.25) imply a disconnect between narrative and reality, with euphoria lingering despite weak momentum. The key question is whether the 18-point narrative gap (60 vs. 42) will persist or force a re-evaluation of fundamentals. Low panic selling (score 10) and no volatility spike (ATR 0.91x) suggest no immediate liquidation pressure, but herding could amplify either way.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 05:14 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"CIB vs. ITT: Which Stock Is the Better Value Option?"
"Wall Street is overwhelmingly bullish on the stocks in this article, with price targets suggesting significant upside potential."
"ITT has outperformed the market over the past 20 years by 6.63% on an annualized basis producing an average annual return of 15.86%."
📈 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 — 92/100
🔴 Weakest match
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — 28/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Based on the documented principles, the model estimates that investors who emphasize liquidity, long‑term stability and the lack of market frenzy—such as Bagehot, Nelson, Smith, Mackay and Loeb—assign high scores above 70, reflecting comfort with ITT’s balance‑sheet strength and favorable cycle position. More nuanced value‑oriented frameworks that balance growth with price—Marks, Fisher, Housel and Schwager—land in the 50‑60 range, indicating they see the business as solid but not compelling enough for a strong buy recommendation. Strategies that rely on strict defensive criteria or market‑efficiency arguments—Graham, Lynch, the efficient‑market view and Marks‑cycle—drop to the 40‑45 bracket, suggesting the stock fails key safety margins or growth‑at‑reasonable‑price thresholds. The most contrarian or trend‑following approaches—Livermore, Graham‑Enterprising and Veblen—rate ITT below 35, interpreting the price action as a negative trend or as growth pursued without sufficient value justification.
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 92
Strong liquidity — would likely survive a real credit squeeze
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 79
Looks like a real 'buy and hold for a decade' candidate
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)
🟢 70
Reasonable capital-preservation profile
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 63
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 60
Some signs of crowd excitement building
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)
🟡 57
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 52
Solid, but not the exceptional quality Fisher looked for
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)
🟡 47
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 45
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 45
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 41
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)
🟡 40
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
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
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 29
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🔴 28
Cycle looks stretched toward overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
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 · 2 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.
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
35.4%
Operating Margin
17.4%
Net Margin
12.4%
EBITDA Margin
21.0%
ROE
11.9%
ROA
7.7%
ROIC
—
EPS
$6.15
Cash
$1.74B
Total Debt
$524.30M
Current Ratio
2.58
Debt/Equity
0.13
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 8.9.2026 | $0.386 |
| 8.6.2026 | $0.386 |
| 7.6.2026 | $0.386 |
| 6.3.2026 | $0.386 |
| 5.3.2026 | $0.386 |
| 1.12.2025 | $0.351 |
| 30.11.2025 | $0.351 |
| 2.9.2025 | $0.351 |
| 1.9.2025 | $0.351 |
| 2.6.2025 | $0.351 |
| 1.6.2025 | $0.351 |
| 6.3.2025 | $0.351 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
$51.12
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$26.79
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 9 positive, 10 neutral, 1 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 15.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Zacks · 11.9.2026
Benzinga · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Business Wire · 10.9.2026
StockStory · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 7.9.2026
Zacks · 7.9.2026
Yahoo · 2.9.2026
StockStory · 2.9.2026
Yahoo · 2.9.2026
StockStory · 2.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 28.8.2026
StockStory · 27.8.2026
Benzinga · 24.8.2026
ITT Inc. (ITT) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 65/100, 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.
ITT currently scores 65/100 (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.
ITT's technical score is 73/100, 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: Operating margin is stable or improving over time; Debt/equity: 0.13; Current ratio: 2.58.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Earnings per share (EPS) growth: -3.3%; Net income growth: -6.1%; MACD histogram is negative — falling momentum.
Yes — ITT 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 — 1 purchases and 2 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Makowiecki Bartlomiej | Tax Withholding in Shares | 3.9.2026 | 1,003 | -1,003 | $202.20 |
| Savi Luca | Open Market Purchase | 31.8.2026 | 5,019 | +5,019 | $199.56 |
| de Mesa Graziano Cheryl | Open Market Sale | 7.8.2026 | 7,159 | -700 | $214.54 |
| de Mesa Graziano Cheryl | Open Market Sale | 7.8.2026 | 700 | -700 | $214.54 |
| Wheeler Kevin J. | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.8.2026 | 756 | +756 | — |
| LOY BERTRAND | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.8.2026 | 756 | +756 | — |
| LOY BERTRAND | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.8.2026 | 756 | +756 | — |
| Wheeler Kevin J. | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.8.2026 | 756 | +756 | — |
| KEENE NAZZIC S | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 1,376 | +1,376 | — |
| O'Shea Christopher | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 909 | +909 | — |
| Laschinger Mary A | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 909 | +909 | — |
| DEFOSSET DON | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 909 | +909 | — |
| Berryman Kevin C | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 909 | +909 | — |
| Chu Maggie | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 909 | +909 | — |
| DELGROSSO DOUGLAS G | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 909 | +909 | — |
| MCDONALD REBECCA ANN | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 909 | +909 | — |
| Szafranski Sharon | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 909 | +909 | — |
| O'Shea Christopher | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 2,672 | +909 | — |
| DEFOSSET DON | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 23,757 | +909 | — |
| MCDONALD REBECCA ANN | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 25,177 | +909 | — |
| DELGROSSO DOUGLAS G | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 1,949 | +909 | — |
| Laschinger Mary A | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 1,949 | +909 | — |
| Berryman Kevin C | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 4,037 | +909 | — |
| KEENE NAZZIC S | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 4,482 | +1,376 | — |
| Szafranski Sharon | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 3,461 | +909 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
6,460,106 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 7,354,476 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
70.2% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 64.1% 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