Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$1,152.93
▲ $0.49 (+0.0%)
Market data updated: 09/20 07:04 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$1.09T
Day Range
$1,140.30 - $1,157.60
52-Week Range
$712.05 - $1,292.65
Beta
—
Next Earnings
29.10.2026
Support
$1,109.15
Resistance
$1,292.65
LLY is a stock from the Healthcare sector — Pharmaceuticals, biotech, medical devices, and health insurance — less sensitive to economic cycles, but exposed to regulation and FDA approvals.
+51.1% (1Y)
Strengths: 11/26 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
🔴 Bearish
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Revenue growth (last year)
Revenue growth (last year): 44.7%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
Leverage risk
Debt/equity: 1.60
Risk
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (74/100), but fair-value analysis scores this stock as relatively expensive (45/100) — the growth story and the current price aren't fully aligned.
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
84/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
91/100
Analog Quality
-1.9%
Median 40D Outcome
72/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
27%
+2.6% … +10.9%
🟡 Base
27%
-0.2% … +0.0%
🔴 Bearish
47%
-7.1% … -2.5%
Typical timeframe (based on real historical rates clearing a 60% bar): 10 trading days.
📌 Bottom line: Out of 15 similar historical cases for this stock, 27% (95% CI 11%–52%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of -0.3%.
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% | -3.7% … +1.5% | +0.6% |
| 10D | 20% (7%–45%) | -1.8% | -5.6% … -0.7% | +1.0% |
| 20D | 27% (11%–52%) | -0.3% | -3.1% … +1.2% | +2.0% |
| 40D | 47% (25%–70%) | -1.9% | -3.7% … +4.9% | +4.0% |
| 60D | 60% (36%–80%) | +5.3% | -2.3% … +14.0% | +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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-02-09 | 84/100 | Consolidation | -7.8% | +26.6% |
| 2019-05-02 | 83/100 | Consolidation | -2.1% | -8.2% |
| 2020-08-19 | 82/100 | Consolidation | +0.1% | -7.4% |
| 2022-02-01 | 82/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +2.4% | +19.7% |
| 2021-12-14 | 82/100 | Consolidation | +2.6% | +6.8% |
| 2018-02-16 | 80/100 | Downtrend | -0.3% | +4.1% |
| 2019-06-18 | 79/100 | Consolidation | -6.6% | -2.8% |
| 2020-10-13 | 78/100 | Consolidation | -2.3% | +10.9% |
| 2020-06-09 | 78/100 | Consolidation | +13.4% | +0.3% |
| 2023-12-21 | 77/100 | Consolidation | +10.1% | +35.1% |
| 2020-09-15 | 77/100 | Consolidation | +0.0% | +5.3% |
| 2019-07-03 | 76/100 | Consolidation | -3.4% | -1.8% |
| 2022-08-16 | 75/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -0.2% | +17.1% |
| 2025-03-25 | 73/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -2.7% | -10.5% |
| 2026-03-09 | 73/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -7.7% | +7.0% |
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 XLV (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
58
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
4d ago · $1,136.11
Evidence: Narrative Gap moved from -4 to 22 day-over-day
What happened after
Still awaiting outcome
🐂🐻 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.
🕰️ StockIQ Time Machine
What did StockIQ know — and when? Pick a date from the real accumulated history.
As of August 26, 2026
Then
70
$1,233.66
Now
58
$1,152.93
What happened since
Signals detected by this date
No signals detected by this date
🧬 STOCK DNA
This stock's profile across 8 real dimensions — a research tool, not a recommendation
Growth
74
Quality
50
Value
45
Momentum
38
Risk
50
Sentiment
92
Fundamental
70
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING LLY...
The provided sources do not contain direct or recent media coverage specifically about Eli Lilly (LLY). The headlines focus on broader pharmaceutical and biotech industry trends, including GLP-1 drugs, neurological research, and stock performance in other companies like Amgen and Novo Nordisk, but none mention Lilly’s recent developments.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Lilly (Eli). News trend score: 92. Reason: 10 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
19
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
39
Psychology
49
Fundamentals
70
Technical
38
Valuation
45
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
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)
+5%
Market Narrative
60
Fundamental Reality
39
Narrative Gap
+21
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s dominant anchoring behavior suggests traders are fixating on the 1.3% proximity to support, likely using it as a near-term price target or stop-loss level. The narrative-reality gap (8 points) hints at a disconnect where optimism (e.g., positive sentiment) may not align with technical weakness. Herding remains present but passive, as LLY’s underperformance mirrors peers, avoiding extreme divergence. The key question is whether the stock’s slight overvaluation (+3.8% above 200-day avg) will persist or if anchoring breaks under further downside pressure.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 06:40 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"GLP1 Drugs Work for Kids, Says Novo Nordisk. They Could Be Another Huge Market."
"Novartis Trial Failure Clouds a Cholesterol Drug Class"
"Wall Street Bulls Look Optimistic About Lilly (LLY): Should You Buy?"
🧠 Market Brain events driving this
📈 19D 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
Philip Fisher — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham — 8/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide among methodologies, with some legendary investors seeing exceptional potential while others flag severe red flags. Philip Fisher and Samuel Armstrong Nelson both rate it near the top, praising its quality and favorable cycle positioning, suggesting a strong, durable business with room to grow. Meanwhile, Peter Lynch and Thorstein Veblen also lean bullish, emphasizing growth alignment and undervaluation, though with slightly less enthusiasm. On the opposite end, Benjamin Graham and Morgan Housel dismiss it outright—Graham’s strict defensive criteria are violated, while Housel warns of volatility that could deter patient investors. The middle ground is crowded with mixed signals: Howard Marks sees a good business but warns of overpriced expectations, while Gerald Loeb and Jesse Livermore flag risk and trend resistance, respectively. Even Jack Schwager’s neutrality underscores the lack of consensus, leaving the stock as a polarizing bet between growth enthusiasts and risk-averse traditionalists.
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟢 100
Exceptional company quality by Fisher's standards
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 35%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 88
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟢 70
Growth appears aligned with real value creation
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 67
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)
🟢 65
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 58
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 50
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 41
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)
🟡 39
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 38
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 37
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 36
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 26
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 25
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
🔴 24
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)
🔴 8
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
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 · 6 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.
A trading range after an advance, but still without clear (volume-based) confirmation of a distribution phase.
Low confidence
$1,109.15
Range Bottom
$1,292.65
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
83.0%
Operating Margin
—
Net Margin
31.7%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
77.8%
ROA
18.4%
ROIC
—
EPS
$23.00
Cash
$7.27B
Total Debt
$42.50B
Current Ratio
1.58
Debt/Equity
1.60
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 14.8.2026 | $1.730 |
| 15.5.2026 | $1.730 |
| 14.5.2026 | $1.730 |
| 13.2.2026 | $1.730 |
| 12.2.2026 | $1.730 |
| 14.11.2025 | $1.500 |
| 13.11.2025 | $1.500 |
| 15.8.2025 | $1.500 |
| 14.8.2025 | $1.500 |
| 16.5.2025 | $1.500 |
| 15.5.2025 | $1.500 |
| 14.2.2025 | $1.500 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
$29.51
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$15.70
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 10 positive, 7 neutral, 3 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 20.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Benzinga · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Benzinga · 18.9.2026
Benzinga · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Lilly (Eli) (LLY) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 58/100, 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.
LLY currently scores 58/100 (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.
LLY's technical score is 38/100, 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: Revenue growth (last year): 44.7%; Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 96.0%; Net income growth: 94.9%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Debt/equity: 1.60; Price is below the 50-day average; MACD histogram is negative — falling momentum.
Yes — LLY 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 5 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hernandez Edgardo | Gift | 2.9.2026 | 13 | -13 | — |
| Dozier Eric | Gift | 2.9.2026 | 216 | -216 | — |
| Jonsson Patrik | Open Market Sale | 17.8.2026 | 6,500 | -6,500 | $1,175.10 |
| LUCIANO JUAN R | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.8.2026 | 13.453 | +13.453 | $1,183.16 |
| Alvarez Ralph | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.8.2026 | 10.495 | +10.495 | $1,183.16 |
| Sulzberger Gabrielle | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.8.2026 | 4.191 | +4.191 | $1,183.16 |
| Fyrwald J Erik | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.8.2026 | 8.382 | +8.382 | $1,183.16 |
| Zakrowski Donald A | Open Market Sale | 10.8.2026 | 1,526 | -2,000 | $1,185.01 |
| Zakrowski Donald A | Open Market Sale | 10.8.2026 | 2,000 | -2,000 | $1,185.01 |
| Hakim Anat | Open Market Sale | 7.8.2026 | 11,875 | -5,000 | $1,190.00 |
| Hakim Anat | Open Market Sale | 7.8.2026 | 5,000 | -5,000 | $1,190.00 |
| Seymour Melissa | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.8.2026 | 981 | -981 | — |
| Seymour Melissa | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.8.2026 | 981 | +981 | — |
| Seymour Melissa | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.8.2026 | 438.707 | -438.707 | $1,148.84 |
| Seymour Melissa | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.8.2026 | 1,506 | +981 | — |
| Seymour Melissa | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.8.2026 | 1,067 | -439 | $1,148.84 |
| Seymour Melissa | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.8.2026 | 952 | -981 | — |
| Alvarez Ralph | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.7.2026 | 10.826 | +10.826 | $1,146.90 |
| Fyrwald J Erik | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.7.2026 | 8.647 | +8.647 | $1,146.90 |
| LUCIANO JUAN R | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.7.2026 | 13.878 | +13.878 | $1,146.90 |
| Sulzberger Gabrielle | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.7.2026 | 4.323 | +4.323 | $1,146.90 |
| Sulzberger Gabrielle | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.7.2026 | 3,000 | +4 | $1,146.90 |
| Alvarez Ralph | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.7.2026 | 55,734 | +11 | $1,146.90 |
| Fyrwald J Erik | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.7.2026 | 75,410 | +9 | $1,146.90 |
| LUCIANO JUAN R | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.7.2026 | 16,905 | +14 | $1,146.90 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
7,894,476 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 9,117,184 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
44.8% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 44.2% 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