Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Information Technology · ·
$335.00
▲ $3.56 (+1.1%)
Market data updated: 09/20 04:23 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/20/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$57.03B
Day Range
$331.76 - $336.60
52-Week Range
$158.79 - $374.96
Beta
—
Next Earnings
23.11.2026
Support
$293.55
Resistance
$366.41
KEYS is a stock from the Technology sector — Software, hardware, chip, and computing-services companies — revenue tied to the pace of innovation and upgrade cycles.
+89.0% (1Y)
Strengths: 18/32 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
Earnings per share (EPS) growth
Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 39.9%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $106.28 vs. price $335.00 (-68.3%)
Fair Value
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (76/100), but fair-value analysis scores this stock as relatively expensive (33/100) — the growth story and the current price aren't fully aligned.
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
79/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
89/100
Analog Quality
+1.1%
Median 40D Outcome
47/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
53%
+3.5% … +8.9%
🟡 Base
7%
-1.0% … -1.0%
🔴 Bearish
40%
-14.4% … -2.6%
Typical timeframe (based on real historical rates clearing a 60% bar): 60 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 — Trend Acceleration
5 occurrence(s) · 80% historical success
Echo #2 — Momentum Breakout
4 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 | 20% (7%–45%) | -0.9% | -3.0% … +0.1% | +0.6% |
| 10D | 40% (20%–64%) | -0.4% | -3.1% … +2.8% | +1.1% |
| 20D | 53% (30%–75%) | +1.1% | -2.8% … +4.2% | +1.7% |
| 40D | 53% (30%–75%) | +1.1% | -0.5% … +5.9% | +3.3% |
| 60D | 60% (36%–80%) | +4.7% | -6.2% … +16.0% | +6.3% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-05-06 | 79/100 | ✓ Uptrend | +3.5% | +1.0% |
| 2020-10-06 | 79/100 | Consolidation | +8.3% | +32.8% |
| 2020-03-04 | 77/100 | Consolidation | -17.4% | +10.4% |
| 2025-09-05 | 77/100 | Uptrend | +3.2% | +17.7% |
| 2024-04-12 | 77/100 | Consolidation | -3.2% | -11.3% |
| 2018-12-12 | 76/100 | Consolidation | +10.8% | +39.9% |
| 2022-12-08 | 75/100 | ✓ Uptrend | -2.5% | -12.5% |
| 2025-07-30 | 74/100 | Uptrend | -1.5% | +0.5% |
| 2023-01-20 | 74/100 | ✓ Uptrend | +3.8% | -16.0% |
| 2023-07-21 | 74/100 | Consolidation | -23.1% | -21.9% |
| 2025-07-02 | 73/100 | Uptrend | -1.0% | +4.7% |
| 2025-05-27 | 73/100 | Uptrend | +1.1% | -1.0% |
| 2025-08-18 | 73/100 | Consolidation | +4.6% | +11.0% |
| 2026-02-05 | 73/100 | ✓ Uptrend | +23.0% | +58.6% |
| 2025-09-24 | 73/100 | Uptrend | -5.6% | +14.4% |
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 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
67
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
76
Quality
47
Value
33
Momentum
70
Risk
62
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
75
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING KEYS...
Recent media coverage of **Keysight Technologies** has highlighted its strong long-term performance, with a $100 investment over a decade growing significantly. The company is also expanding into **AI safety**, notably through a collaboration with the University of York to validate AI in autonomous vehicles, while analysts discuss its stock valuation amid recent gains. Despite mixed market sentiment, Keysight remains positioned as an affordable growth stock with accelerating fundamentals.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Keysight Technologies. News trend score: 100. Reason: 14 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 2 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
38
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
37
Psychology
51
Fundamentals
75
Technical
70
Valuation
33
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.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price (3M)
-8%
Market Narrative
82
Fundamental Reality
37
Narrative Gap
+45
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior suggests traders are exhibiting **overconfidence** (score 52), driven by a disconnect between price momentum (+5.3%) and modest EPS growth (+0.4%), alongside extreme valuation (+214% above DCF). This aligns with **euphoria** (score 34) due to positive sentiment and momentum, though FOMO (score 22) is present but muted by neutral technical indicators. The key open question is whether the narrative gap (77 vs. 37) reflects overvaluation or a delayed fundamental catalyst. Anchoring appears weak, and no panic or loss aversion signals exist.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 01:27 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Keysight Technologies (KEYS) has put AI safety in focus after announcing a research collaboration with the Centre for Assuring Autonomy at the University of York"
"Keysight Techs (NYSE:KEYS) has outperformed the market over the past 10 years by 13.41% on an annualized basis producing an average annual return of 26.83%"
"Keysight Technologies combines accelerating earnings growth, reasonable valuation, and solid profitability"
"Keysight Technologies' recent AI safety push comes as the stock trades with a strong year-to-date share price return of 58.39%"
📈 14D 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 — 75/100
🔴 Weakest match
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — 15/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Based on Walter Bagehot's documented principles, the model estimates strong liquidity and a high likelihood of surviving a credit squeeze, while Morgan Housel and Gerald Loeb’s scores reflect a view of the stock as a quiet compounder with reasonable capital‑preservation qualities. Based on Thorstein Veblen, Jesse Livermore, Philip Fisher, Peter Lynch, and the efficient‑market perspective, the model estimates mixed signals—growth may not yet translate into real profit, price may already reflect much of the upside, and there is insufficient evidence to favor the stock over a broad index. Based on Charles Mackay, Edgar Lawrence Smith, Howard Marks, Benjamin Graham (both defensive and enterprising), Samuel Armstrong Nelson, and Jack Schwager, the model estimates concerns such as crowd‑driven excitement, high expectations, overbought conditions, and a lack of a clear setup, leading to lower scores. These divergent assessments arise because each historical methodology weights liquidity, growth, valuation, and market‑cycle factors differently, resulting in both convergent and opposite conclusions about the stock.
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 75
Strong liquidity — would likely survive a real credit squeeze
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 63
Moderate risk 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)
🟡 63
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 57
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 56
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 53
Solid, but not the exceptional quality Fisher looked for
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 50
Mixed — growth exists but the price already reflects much of it
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 50
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 44
Pattern consistent with a crowd delusion Mackay would flag
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)
🟡 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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 38
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 35
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 26
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 26
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🔴 15
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 300 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟢 Most indicators support an uptrend (8 bullish · 3 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.
A trading range after a decline, but still without clear (volume-based) confirmation of an accumulation phase.
Low confidence
$293.55
Range Bottom
$366.41
Range Top
50
Trading Days in Range
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
62.1%
Operating Margin
16.3%
Net Margin
15.8%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
14.4%
ROA
7.5%
ROIC
—
EPS
$4.93
Cash
$1.87B
Total Debt
$2.53B
Current Ratio
2.35
Debt/Equity
0.43
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$335.00
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$106.28
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-68.3%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
-0.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | -0.0% | $1.28B | $1.17B |
| 2 | 0.6% | $1.29B | $1.08B |
| 3 | 1.2% | $1.30B | $1.01B |
| 4 | 1.9% | $1.33B | $941.05M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $1.36B | $884.93M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$1.28B
Terminal Value
$21.47B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$13.95B
Enterprise Value
$19.05B
Net Debt
$661.00M
Equity Value
$18.39B
*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
$34.35
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$26.73
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 14 positive, 4 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
ChartMill · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 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 · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
Keysight Technologies (KEYS) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 67/100, 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.
KEYS currently scores 67/100 (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, KEYS's estimated fair value is $106.28, which is 68.3% below the current price of $335.00. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
KEYS's technical score is 70/100, 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: Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 39.9%; Free cash flow growth: 42.7%; Net income growth: 38.4%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $106.28 vs. price $335.00 (-68.3%); Operating margin is eroding over time; -9.9% over the last 3 months relative to the index.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for KEYS.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 15 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Estrada Ingrid A | Open Market Sale | 4.9.2026 | 2,000 | -2,000 | $326.10 |
| Reese Scott | Grant/Award from Employer | 26.8.2026 | 435 | +435 | — |
| Reese Scott | Grant/Award from Employer | 26.8.2026 | 435 | +435 | — |
| NYE JEAN MCCLUNG | Open Market Sale | 21.8.2026 | 35,752 | -3,000 | $319.22 |
| NYE JEAN MCCLUNG | Open Market Sale | 21.8.2026 | 3,000 | -3,000 | $319.22 |
| Estrada Ingrid A | Open Market Sale | 20.8.2026 | 103,861 | -2,000 | $314.66 |
| Estrada Ingrid A | Open Market Sale | 20.8.2026 | 2,000 | -2,000 | $314.66 |
| POOLE LISA M. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.8.2026 | 32 | -32 | $319.08 |
| POOLE LISA M. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.8.2026 | 6,334 | -32 | $319.08 |
| ALLOUCHE ARNAUD | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.7.2026 | 1,474 | +1,474 | — |
| ALLOUCHE ARNAUD | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.7.2026 | 1,474 | +1,474 | — |
| Estrada Ingrid A | Open Market Sale | 30.6.2026 | 2,000 | -2,000 | $340.87 |
| Estrada Ingrid A | Open Market Sale | 30.6.2026 | 105,861 | -2,000 | $340.87 |
| Dhanasekaran Satish | Open Market Sale | 25.6.2026 | 507 | -507 | $361.32 |
| CULLEN JAMES | Open Market Sale | 2.6.2026 | 3,000 | -3,000 | $346.58 |
| CULLEN JAMES | Open Market Sale | 2.6.2026 | 21,821 | -3,000 | $346.58 |
| JUSKIE JO ANN | Tax Withholding in Shares | 26.5.2026 | 136 | -136 | $355.74 |
| JUSKIE JO ANN | Tax Withholding in Shares | 26.5.2026 | 12,486 | -136 | $355.74 |
| Dhanasekaran Satish | Tax Withholding in Shares | 18.5.2026 | 500 | -500 | $340.48 |
| Dhanasekaran Satish | Tax Withholding in Shares | 18.5.2026 | 121,898 | -500 | $340.48 |
| HAMADA RICHARD P | Open Market Sale | 30.3.2026 | 870 | -870 | $275.78 |
| HAMADA RICHARD P | Open Market Sale | 30.3.2026 | 42,160 | -870 | $275.78 |
| Dhanasekaran Satish | Open Market Sale | 24.3.2026 | 1,667 | -1,667 | $300.00 |
| Dougherty Neil | Open Market Sale | 24.3.2026 | 2,000 | -2,000 | $298.37 |
| Li Jeffrey K | Open Market Sale | 24.3.2026 | 2,000 | -2,000 | $297.19 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
2,899,547 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 3,196,667 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
35.0% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 48.0% 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