Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Staples · ·
$30.96
▼ $0.47 (-1.5%)
Market data updated: 09/19 09:36 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/18/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
$42.13B
Day Range
$30.76 - $31.41
52-Week Range
$24.88 - $33.82
Beta
—
Next Earnings
26.10.2026
Support
$28.66
Resistance
$33.17
KDP is a stock from the Consumer Defensive sector — Food, beverages, and household products — steady demand even in a recession, since these are essential consumer goods.
+15.3% (1Y)
Strengths: 7/31 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
Earnings per share (EPS) growth
Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 45.7%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $9.27 vs. price $30.96 (-70.1%)
Fair Value
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (62/100), but fair-value analysis scores this stock as relatively expensive (38/100) — the growth story and the current price aren't fully aligned.
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
89/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
92/100
Analog Quality
-1.6%
Median 40D Outcome
75/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
40%
+3.9% … +5.9%
🟡 Base
13%
+0.0% … +0.4%
🔴 Bearish
47%
-5.5% … -2.5%
📌 Bottom line: Out of 15 similar historical cases for this stock, 40% (95% CI 20%–64%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of -0.2%.
Echo #1 — Trend Acceleration
5 occurrence(s) · 20% historical success
Echo #2 — Momentum Breakout
2 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 | 40% (20%–64%) | -0.2% | -1.9% … +1.8% | +0.2% |
| 10D | 47% (25%–70%) | -0.1% | -3.6% … +2.3% | +0.3% |
| 20D | 40% (20%–64%) | -0.2% | -2.7% … +4.0% | +0.5% |
| 40D | 47% (25%–70%) | -1.6% | -3.6% … +8.8% | +0.8% |
| 60D | 60% (36%–80%) | +4.7% | -3.2% … +11.5% | +1.2% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-02-22 | 89/100 | Consolidation | +9.2% | +13.6% |
| 2021-01-29 | 88/100 | Uptrend | -2.9% | +11.7% |
| 2020-08-11 | 88/100 | Consolidation | -0.2% | -4.5% |
| 2022-05-10 | 87/100 | Consolidation | -2.6% | +4.6% |
| 2021-09-30 | 87/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +3.9% | +5.7% |
| 2019-10-08 | 87/100 | Downtrend | +4.1% | +7.0% |
| 2022-03-16 | 86/100 | Consolidation | +0.5% | -5.3% |
| 2021-12-03 | 86/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +6.5% | +12.0% |
| 2021-01-11 | 86/100 | Uptrend | +3.3% | +12.6% |
| 2022-12-14 | 86/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -4.4% | -7.3% |
| 2022-09-07 | 85/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -2.3% | +1.0% |
| 2021-08-05 | 85/100 | Consolidation | +4.1% | +4.7% |
| 2024-10-10 | 85/100 | Consolidation | -9.8% | -16.0% |
| 2022-04-22 | 85/100 | Consolidation | -6.5% | -1.9% |
| 2024-06-27 | 84/100 | Consolidation | -1.1% | +11.4% |
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 XLP (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
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
3d ago · $31.58
Evidence: Narrative Gap moved from -3 to 24 day-over-day
What happened after
Still awaiting outcome
16d ago · $32.86
Evidence: Narrative Gap moved from 23 to -2 day-over-day
What happened after
🐂🐻 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
62
Quality
58
Value
38
Momentum
33
Risk
34
Sentiment
80
Fundamental
53
Institutional
40
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING KDP...
Recent media coverage of Keurig Dr Pepper has centered on its strategic financial moves ahead of an upcoming corporate split, notably the $925 million sale of its Chobani yogurt stake—including a Pennsylvania facility—to the yogurt maker itself. Insiders have also been reducing their stock holdings, while Dr Pepper’s brand has launched a new college football-themed initiative, the Fan Wall of Fame. The company’s stock remains on investors’ radar amid these shifts.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Keurig Dr Pepper. News trend score: 80. Reason: 10 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 5 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)
41
Psychology
59
Fundamentals
53
Technical
33
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.
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.
Price (3M)
+2%
Market Narrative
67
Fundamental Reality
41
Narrative Gap
+26
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant anchoring behavior suggests traders are fixated on the 1.8% resistance gap, ignoring broader valuation disconnects (+251% vs. DCF). Overconfidence (51) and euphoria (24) coexist, driven by momentum decoupled from fundamentals. The narrative gap (5) hints at misaligned expectations—reality may lag perception. Key question: Will traders break free from resistance anchoring or double down despite valuation extremes?
Updated: 09/09/2026, 03:30 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"KDP said on September 1 that it will sell its entire equity stake in Chobani back to the yogurt maker for $800 million, plus a manufacturing facility"
"Insider liquidated 15% of her direct equity stake"
"soda giant makes another warehouse change, cuts 105 jobs"
"Dr Pepper is taking fandom to the next level with the First-Ever Fan Wall of Fame"
🧠 Market Brain events driving this
📈 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 — 85/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor) — 9/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide between growth-focused and risk-averse methodologies. Peter Lynch and Thorstein Veblen both see strong potential, with Lynch’s high score (83) suggesting the stock’s price hasn’t yet reflected its growth, while Veblen’s alignment with real value creation (77) reinforces that conviction. Meanwhile, long-term buy-and-hold advocates like Edgar Lawrence Smith (69) echo this optimism, framing it as a decade-long hold. However, risk-conscious investors like Gerald M. Loeb (38) and Benjamin Graham (28) dismiss it outright, flagging excessive volatility and weak defensive metrics. The middle ground—where Howard Marks (44) and Jack Schwager (44) see mixed signals—reflects uncertainty about whether the stock’s momentum justifies the risk, while efficiency skeptics like Bogle and Malkiel (43) question whether active selection adds value over passive indexing. The contrast highlights whether this stock is a high-conviction growth bet or a speculative gamble.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 85
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 83
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 69
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
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 59
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)
🟡 45
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)
🟡 44
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)
🟡 42
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 40
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 38
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 38
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)
🔴 34
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)
🔴 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
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 20
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
🔴 9
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
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 · 8 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 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
54.2%
Operating Margin
21.5%
Net Margin
12.5%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
8.2%
ROA
3.8%
ROIC
—
EPS
$1.53
Cash
$1.03B
Total Debt
$13.93B
Current Ratio
0.64
Debt/Equity
0.67
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 26.6.2026 | $0.230 |
| 25.6.2026 | $0.230 |
| 27.3.2026 | $0.230 |
| 26.3.2026 | $0.230 |
| 2.1.2026 | $0.230 |
| 1.1.2026 | $0.230 |
| 26.9.2025 | $0.230 |
| 25.9.2025 | $0.230 |
| 27.6.2025 | $0.230 |
| 26.6.2025 | $0.230 |
| 28.3.2025 | $0.230 |
| 27.3.2025 | $0.230 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$30.96
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$9.27
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-70.1%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
5.7%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 5.7% | $1.59B | $1.46B |
| 2 | 4.9% | $1.67B | $1.41B |
| 3 | 4.1% | $1.74B | $1.34B |
| 4 | 3.3% | $1.80B | $1.27B |
| 5 | 2.5% | $1.84B | $1.20B |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$1.50B
Terminal Value
$29.02B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$18.86B
Enterprise Value
$25.54B
Net Debt
$12.90B
Equity Value
$12.63B
*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
$18.78
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$1.32
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 10 positive, 5 neutral, 5 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Benzinga · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 12.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Zacks · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Insider Monkey · 11.9.2026
MT Newswires · 10.9.2026
Keurig Dr Pepper (KDP) 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.
KDP 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, KDP's estimated fair value is $9.27, which is 70.1% below the current price of $30.96. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
KDP's technical score is 33/100, 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: Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 45.7%; Net income growth: 44.3%; Operating margin is stable or improving over time.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $9.27 vs. price $30.96 (-70.1%); Current ratio: 0.64; Calmar: -0.07 (3y annualized return -2.3% / max drawdown 33.4%).
Yes — KDP 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 — 2 purchases and 3 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DeNooyer Mary Beth | Open Market Sale | 9.9.2026 | 12,000 | -12,000 | $32.30 |
| DeNooyer Mary Beth | Open Market Sale | 8.9.2026 | 12,000 | -12,000 | $32.55 |
| Stephens Angela A. | Open Market Sale | 3.9.2026 | 9,500 | -9,500 | $32.70 |
| Alt Aaron E | Open Market Purchase | 25.8.2026 | 7,862 | +7,862 | $31.83 |
| Alt Aaron E | Open Market Purchase | 25.8.2026 | 7,862 | +7,862 | $31.83 |
| Stephens Angela A. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.6.2026 | 1,161 | -1,161 | $30.20 |
| Stephens Angela A. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.6.2026 | 2,950 | +2,950 | — |
| Stephens Angela A. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.6.2026 | 2,950 | -2,950 | — |
| Stephens Angela A. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.6.2026 | 66,447 | +2,950 | — |
| Stephens Angela A. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.6.2026 | 65,286 | -1,161 | $30.20 |
| Stephens Angela A. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.6.2026 | 8,850 | -2,950 | — |
| Cofer Timothy P. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 20.5.2026 | 88,106 | -88,106 | — |
| Cofer Timothy P. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 20.5.2026 | 88,106 | +88,106 | — |
| Cofer Timothy P. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 20.5.2026 | 34,670 | -34,670 | $28.69 |
| Cofer Timothy P. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 20.5.2026 | 88,106 | +88,106 | — |
| Cofer Timothy P. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 20.5.2026 | 53,436 | -34,670 | $28.69 |
| Cofer Timothy P. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 20.5.2026 | 66,079 | -88,106 | — |
| OLIVEIRA RAFAEL | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.4.2026 | 177,620 | +177,620 | — |
| OLIVEIRA RAFAEL | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.4.2026 | 177,620 | +177,620 | — |
| OLIVEIRA RAFAEL | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.4.2026 | 177,620 | +177,620 | — |
| Gamgort Robert James | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 5.3.2026 | 14,077 | -14,077 | — |
| Gamgort Robert James | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 5.3.2026 | 14,077 | +14,077 | — |
| Gamgort Robert James | Tax Withholding in Shares | 5.3.2026 | 5,540 | -5,540 | $28.05 |
| Cofer Timothy P. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 5.3.2026 | 30,969 | -30,969 | — |
| Cofer Timothy P. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 5.3.2026 | 12,187 | -12,187 | $28.05 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
75,713,616 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 63,810,402 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
60.3% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 58.3% 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