Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Industrials · ·
$247.29
▼ $3.17 (-1.3%)
Market data updated: 09/20 07:04 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$46.05B
Day Range
$246.11 - $251.50
52-Week Range
$244.76 - $379.23
Beta
—
Next Earnings
28.10.2026
Support
$244.76
Resistance
$308.89
LHX is a stock from the Industrials sector — Manufacturing, aerospace, defense, and infrastructure — closely tied to capital-investment cycles and economic growth.
-12.5% (1Y)
Strengths: 3/28 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
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Golden Cross
SMA 50 recently crossed above SMA 200
Technical
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $195.87 vs. price $247.29 (-20.8%)
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.
81/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
89/100
Analog Quality
+5.2%
Median 40D Outcome
63/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
60%
+4.5% … +10.7%
🟡 Base
13%
-0.1% … +0.6%
🔴 Bearish
27%
-7.8% … -3.6%
Typical timeframe (based on real historical rates clearing a 60% bar): 5 trading days.
📌 Bottom line: Out of 15 similar historical cases for this stock, 60% (95% CI 36%–80%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of +3.7%.
Echo #1 — Oversold Reversal
7 occurrence(s) · 57% historical success
Echo #2 — Momentum Breakout
3 occurrence(s) · 67% 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 | 60% (36%–80%) | +3.3% | -1.1% … +6.4% | +0.3% |
| 10D | 53% (30%–75%) | +3.6% | -3.3% … +8.3% | +0.7% |
| 20D | 60% (36%–80%) | +3.7% | -0.8% … +7.7% | +1.1% |
| 40D | 60% (36%–80%) | +5.2% | -1.1% … +7.4% | +2.5% |
| 60D | 53% (30%–75%) | +4.2% | -2.0% … +13.0% | +3.2% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-09-13 | 81/100 | ✓ Downtrend | +4.5% | +16.3% |
| 2023-06-01 | 75/100 | Downtrend | +10.7% | +0.7% |
| 2023-01-24 | 75/100 | Downtrend | +8.9% | +4.2% |
| 2023-08-29 | 72/100 | ✓ Downtrend | -1.2% | +6.0% |
| 2025-02-21 | 71/100 | ✓ Downtrend | +4.5% | +16.1% |
| 2023-03-28 | 71/100 | ✓ Downtrend | +1.3% | -0.0% |
| 2023-05-11 | 71/100 | Downtrend | +0.9% | -0.7% |
| 2023-10-06 | 70/100 | ✓ Downtrend | +13.3% | +28.0% |
| 2022-12-28 | 70/100 | Downtrend | +3.7% | -4.9% |
| 2020-10-29 | 69/100 | ✓ Downtrend | +19.3% | +9.9% |
| 2025-01-08 | 69/100 | ✓ Downtrend | -0.5% | -3.4% |
| 2018-12-04 | 66/100 | Downtrend | -4.4% | +16.8% |
| 2023-08-08 | 63/100 | Downtrend | -8.3% | -3.7% |
| 2022-12-13 | 63/100 | ✓ Downtrend | -7.6% | -6.8% |
| 2025-02-06 | 62/100 | Downtrend | +6.5% | +5.8% |
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 XLI (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
47
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
62
Quality
42
Value
38
Momentum
27
Risk
42
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
46
Institutional
No data available
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
Not enough comparably-scored stocks yet to show similar matches.
SCANNING LHX...
Recent media coverage of L3Harris Technologies has primarily centered on its defense sector dominance and major contracts. The company secured a **$4.7 billion, seven-year deal** to supply the **PAC-3 MSE propulsion system**, a critical component for U.S. military arsenals, as highlighted by multiple sources. Analysts also emphasized L3Harris’s strong long-term growth prospects, citing its **established defense relationships** and **diverse portfolio**, positioning it as a key player in modern warfare technology. Stock discussions occasionally referenced market volatility but focused on its strategic advantages.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about L3Harris. News trend score: 100. Reason: 12 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
23
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
48
Psychology
80
Fundamentals
46
Technical
27
Valuation
38
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
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 (3M)
-16%
Market Narrative
64
Fundamental Reality
48
Narrative Gap
+16
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s dominant anchoring (score 80) suggests traders are fixated on the 1.0% support level, likely due to recent proximity. Loss aversion (57) aligns with the 15.6% drawdown, while overconfidence (28) hints at lingering belief in undervaluation despite weak momentum. The narrow narrative-reality gap (1) implies no dramatic misalignment, but the absence of euphoria or panic signals cautious positioning. The key question: *Will traders break the 1.0% anchor, or will loss aversion sustain near-support consolidation?*
Updated: 09/08/2026, 05:59 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
""L3Harris Technologies Gets $4.7 Billion 7-Year Contract to Make PAC-3 MSE Propulsion System""
""L3Harris is well-positioned for long-term revenue growth, leveraging established defense relationships""
📈 8D 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 — 98/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor) — 12/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock splits the historical methodologies into two starkly opposing camps: the bullish camp, led by technical and cyclical analysts, and the bearish camp, dominated by value and fundamental skeptics. Samuel Armstrong Nelson, Charles Mackay, and Howard Marks (Market Cycle) all see it as a favorable setup, with Nelson even calling it closer to oversold than overbought, while Jack Schwager and Howard Marks (Market Cycle) highlight its disciplined reward/risk profile. Meanwhile, value investors like Benjamin Graham and Peter Lynch dismiss it outright, with Graham calling it a failure of defensive criteria and Lynch rejecting it for lacking growth at a reasonable price. The divide is further sharpened by efficiency skeptics like Bogle and Malkiel, who see no clear edge over passive indexing, while behavioral analysts like Veblen and Bagehot warn of speculative tendencies or liquidity risks. The contrast underscores whether this stock is a cyclical or contrarian bet (high scores) or a fundamentally flawed or overpriced opportunity (low scores).
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 98
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 83
A real, disciplined setup with favorable reward/risk
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 73
Looks early-to-mid cycle, not overextended
Key question
Where are we in the cycle right now — near a hot extreme, or a cold one?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 72
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟢 72
The kind of quiet compounder a patient holder could actually stick with
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 70
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 54
Solid, but not the exceptional quality Fisher looked for
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 40%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 51
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 47
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 44
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 39
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 38
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 37
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 23
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)
🔴 19
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 12
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 · 10 bearish · 0 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 downtrend 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
—
Operating Margin
—
Net Margin
—
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
8.2%
ROA
3.9%
ROIC
—
EPS
$8.57
Cash
$1.07B
Total Debt
$10.44B
Current Ratio
1.19
Debt/Equity
0.53
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 4.9.2026 | $1.250 |
| 5.6.2026 | $1.250 |
| 4.6.2026 | $1.250 |
| 6.3.2026 | $1.250 |
| 5.3.2026 | $1.250 |
| 17.11.2025 | $1.200 |
| 16.11.2025 | $1.200 |
| 5.9.2025 | $1.200 |
| 4.9.2025 | $1.200 |
| 3.6.2025 | $1.200 |
| 2.6.2025 | $1.200 |
| 10.3.2025 | $1.200 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$247.29
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$195.87
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-20.8%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
6.5%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 6.5% | $2.86B | $2.62B |
| 2 | 5.5% | $3.01B | $2.54B |
| 3 | 4.5% | $3.15B | $2.43B |
| 4 | 3.5% | $3.26B | $2.31B |
| 5 | 2.5% | $3.34B | $2.17B |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$2.68B
Terminal Value
$52.64B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$34.21B
Enterprise Value
$46.28B
Net Debt
$9.37B
Equity Value
$36.90B
*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
$104.22
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$36.54
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 12 positive, 6 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Fintel · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
L3Harris (LHX) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 47/100, 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.
LHX currently scores 47/100 (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, LHX's estimated fair value is $195.87, which is 20.8% below the current price of $247.29. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
LHX's technical score is 27/100, 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: SMA 50 recently crossed above SMA 200; Free cash flow growth: 24.7%; MACD histogram is positive — rising momentum.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $195.87 vs. price $247.29 (-20.8%); Operating margin is eroding over time; Calmar: 0.34 (3y annualized return 12.0% / max drawdown 35.1%).
Yes — LHX 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 — 0 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Barnes Lauren N. | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.9.2026 | 5,692 | +5,692 | — |
| MEHTA SAMIR | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.9.2026 | 11,831 | +11,831 | — |
| Aebli Christopher T. | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.9.2026 | 5,692 | +5,692 | — |
| MEHTA SAMIR | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.9.2026 | 3,036 | +3,036 | — |
| Rakita Melanie | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 5,399 | +5,399 | — |
| MEHTA SAMIR | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 17,995 | +17,995 | — |
| Bedingfield Kenneth L | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 17,995 | +17,995 | — |
| SHARP KENNETH P | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 8,998 | +8,998 | — |
| Hanna Tania W. | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 8,998 | +8,998 | — |
| Rakita Melanie | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 5,399 | +5,399 | — |
| Bedingfield Kenneth L | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 17,995 | +17,995 | — |
| SHARP KENNETH P | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 8,998 | +8,998 | — |
| MEHTA SAMIR | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 17,995 | +17,995 | — |
| Hanna Tania W. | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 8,998 | +8,998 | — |
| Bedingfield Kenneth L | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 18.83 | +18.83 | $292.93 |
| Regnery David S | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 128.32 | +128.32 | $292.93 |
| Geraghty Joanna | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 149.71 | +149.71 | $292.93 |
| Zamarro Christina L | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 128.32 | +128.32 | $292.93 |
| Bedingfield Kenneth L | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 352 | +19 | $292.93 |
| Regnery David S | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 2,816 | +128 | $292.93 |
| Geraghty Joanna | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 5,708 | +150 | $292.93 |
| Zamarro Christina L | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 6,267 | +128 | $292.93 |
| HACHIGIAN KIRK S | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.5.2026 | 661 | +661 | $302.35 |
| Harris Harry B. Jr | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.5.2026 | 661 | +661 | — |
| HAY LEWIS III | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.5.2026 | 661 | +661 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
3,968,472 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 3,864,718 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
35.5% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 35.8% 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