Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Technology · ·
$211.46
▲ $0.64 (+0.3%)
Market data updated: 09/20 03:33 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/20/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$12.33B
Day Range
$207.24 - $212.06
52-Week Range
$119.06 - $227.03
Beta
—
Next Earnings
19.10.2026
Support
$145.86
Resistance
$227.03
MANH is a stock from the Technology sector — Software, hardware, chip, and computing-services companies — revenue tied to the pace of innovation and upgrade cycles.
-2.9% (1Y)
Strengths: 15/30 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
Free cash flow growth
Free cash flow growth: 30.6%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $120.26 vs. price $211.46 (-43.1%)
Fair Value
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (64/100), 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.
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
61
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.
🕰️ StockIQ Time Machine
What did StockIQ know — and when? Pick a date from the real accumulated history.
As of August 26, 2026
Then
68
$213.10
Now
61
$211.46
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
64
Quality
63
Value
33
Momentum
61
Risk
48
Sentiment
68
Fundamental
79
Institutional
0
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 **Manhattan Associates** has centered on its strategic partnerships and positive market sentiment. The company gained attention for its collaboration with **Boscov’s**, deploying its **ActiveOrder solution** to modernize the retailer’s omnichannel fulfillment and customer service operations. Additionally, Manhattan Associates received a **buy rating upgrade** from analysts, citing optimism over earnings prospects, which could drive stock appreciation. While some reports noted cautious Wall Street forecasts, the focus remained on growth opportunities and technology partnerships.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Manhattan Associates, Inc.. News trend score: 68. Reason: 6 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
40
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
42
Psychology
48
Fundamentals
79
Technical
61
Valuation
33
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.
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)
+60%
Market Narrative
61
Fundamental Reality
42
Narrative Gap
+19
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s dominant euphoria—driven by a +73% DCF premium and +35.7% above 200-day averages—suggests detached valuation optimism, despite weak momentum (-1.6% ROC). Overconfidence (score 45) aligns with this, as traders may overlook divergence between price gains and stagnant fundamentals. The narrative gap (24 points) hints at a disconnect between rosy expectations and current realities. Key question: Will traders sustain this premium, or will fundamentals eventually reassert themselves? The absence of panic or herding implies complacency, not urgency.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 06:43 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Boscov’s Teams with Manhattan Associates to Modernize Fulfillment Capabilities — The retailer will be deploying Manhattan’s ActiveOrder solution."
"quarterly earnings and upbeat corporate commentary signaled that artificial intelligence is driving growth across enterprise software rather than threatening legacy business models."
📈 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
Morgan Housel — 69/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor) — 15/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Based on his documented principles, the model estimates that cycle‑focused investors like Nelson (score 76) and quality‑oriented Fisher (score 67) view MANH more favorably, noting an oversold position and solid fundamentals. Mid‑range scores from Veblen, Livermore, the efficient‑market view, Housel, Marks‑cycle, Mackay and Schwager (scores 46‑57) reflect mixed signals, unclear trends, and only modest edge versus a broader index. At the lower end, Smith, Bagehot, Loeb, Marks, Lynch and both Graham approaches (scores 3‑36) flag significant risk, liquidity concerns, valuation doubts, and a failure to meet cheapness or growth‑at‑reasonable‑price thresholds. This spread shows how investors emphasizing cycles, intrinsic quality, or capital preservation can arrive at divergent conclusions, while more neutral or market‑efficiency frameworks cluster around the middle. Overall, the model estimates that the historical methodologies range from mildly optimistic to strongly cautionary regarding MANH.
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟢 69
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟢 67
Solid, but not the exceptional quality Fisher looked for
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 60
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 57
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 52
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 51
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)
🟡 51
Adequate but not exceptional liquidity
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 50
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)
🟡 48
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 46
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 (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 46
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 39
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 36
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 26
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)
🔴 18
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
🔴 15
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 280 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟢 Most indicators support an uptrend (5 bullish · 3 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
56.3%
Operating Margin
25.9%
Net Margin
20.3%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
69.9%
ROA
26.2%
ROIC
—
EPS
$3.64
Cash
$328.75M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
1.28
Debt/Equity
0.00
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$211.46
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$120.26
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-43.1%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
12.4%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 12.4% | $420.21M | $385.51M |
| 2 | 9.9% | $461.76M | $388.65M |
| 3 | 7.4% | $496.04M | $383.04M |
| 4 | 5.0% | $520.66M | $368.85M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $533.68M | $346.85M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$374.01M
Terminal Value
$8.42B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$5.47B
Enterprise Value
$7.34B
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$7.34B
*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
$5.26
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$2.10
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 6 positive, 11 neutral, 3 negative out of the last 20 articles.
StockStory · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 9.9.2026
Benzinga · 8.9.2026
Benzinga · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
Sourcing Journal · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 1.9.2026
Zacks · 1.9.2026
Yahoo · 1.9.2026
MT Newswires · 1.9.2026
Business Wire · 1.9.2026
Yahoo · 31.8.2026
StockStory · 31.8.2026
Yahoo · 28.8.2026
StockStory · 28.8.2026
Yahoo · 27.8.2026
Zacks · 27.8.2026
Benzinga · 27.8.2026
Manhattan Associates, Inc. (MANH) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 61/100, 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.
MANH currently scores 61/100 (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, MANH's estimated fair value is $120.26, which is 43.1% below the current price of $211.46. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
MANH's technical score is 61/100, 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: Free cash flow growth: 30.6%; Operating margin is stable or improving over time; Return on equity (ROE): 69.9% — strong.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $120.26 vs. price $211.46 (-43.1%); Calmar: 0.02 (3y annualized return 1.4% / max drawdown 61.0%); MACD histogram is negative — falling momentum.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for MANH.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 8 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clark Eric Andrew | Open Market Sale | 11.8.2026 | 3,000 | -3,000 | $197.76 |
| Hollembaek Linda T. | Open Market Sale | 6.8.2026 | 1,579 | -1,579 | $189.88 |
| Gantt James Stewart | Open Market Sale | 30.7.2026 | 5,139 | -5,139 | $195.53 |
| Gantt James Stewart | Open Market Sale | 30.7.2026 | 55,676 | -5,139 | $195.53 |
| MORAN CHARLES E | Gift | 15.6.2026 | 1,330 | -1,330 | — |
| MORAN CHARLES E | Gift | 15.6.2026 | 1,940 | -1,330 | — |
| Clark Eric Andrew | Open Market Sale | 10.6.2026 | 1,000 | -1,000 | $146.77 |
| Clark Eric Andrew | Open Market Sale | 10.6.2026 | 92,638 | -1,000 | $146.77 |
| MORAN CHARLES E | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 1,940 | +1,940 | — |
| Capel Eddie | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 1,940 | +1,940 | — |
| NOONAN THOMAS E | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 1,940 | +1,940 | — |
| Eger Edmond | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 1,940 | +1,940 | — |
| Hollembaek Linda T. | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 1,940 | +1,940 | — |
| SHEER DANIELLE | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 1,940 | +1,940 | — |
| Kuryea Kimberly A | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 1,940 | +1,940 | — |
| Capel Eddie | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 156,329 | +1,940 | — |
| MORAN CHARLES E | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 3,270 | +1,940 | — |
| Eger Edmond | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 8,453 | +1,940 | — |
| NOONAN THOMAS E | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 103,800 | +1,940 | — |
| Hollembaek Linda T. | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 13,847 | +1,940 | — |
| Kuryea Kimberly A | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 8,027 | +1,940 | — |
| SHEER DANIELLE | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 3,270 | +1,940 | — |
| Gantt James Stewart | Open Market Sale | 24.4.2026 | 7,300 | -7,300 | $139.25 |
| Gantt James Stewart | Open Market Sale | 24.4.2026 | 60,815 | -7,300 | $139.25 |
| Pinne Linda C. | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.4.2026 | 5,323 | +5,323 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
2,786,161 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 2,421,596 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
76.8% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 72.4% 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