Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Communication Services · ·
$665.75
▼ $16.56 (-2.4%)
Market data updated: 09/19 07:49 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
$660.80 - $690.15
52-Week Range
$520.26 - $785.73
Beta
—
Next Earnings
27.10.2026
Support
$524.49
Resistance
$690.15
META is a stock from the Communication Services sector — Telecom, media, and internet/social platforms — revenue from advertising and subscriptions.
-14.7% (1Y)
Strengths: 22/32 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
Revenue growth (last year)
Revenue growth (last year): 22.2%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $403.60 vs. price $665.75 (-39.4%)
Fair Value
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
77/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
89/100
Analog Quality
+4.5%
Median 40D Outcome
57/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
60%
+5.1% … +8.9%
🟡 Base
7%
+0.6% … +0.6%
🔴 Bearish
33%
-7.8% … -4.3%
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, 60% (95% CI 36%–80%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of +3.7%.
Echo #1 — Trend Acceleration
3 occurrence(s) · 100% 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% | -2.9% … +3.0% | +0.6% |
| 10D | 60% (36%–80%) | +4.1% | -2.2% … +7.7% | +1.2% |
| 20D | 60% (36%–80%) | +3.7% | -3.5% … +7.5% | +2.1% |
| 40D | 53% (30%–75%) | +4.5% | -3.6% … +15.8% | +3.3% |
| 60D | 67% (42%–85%) | +12.6% | -2.8% … +24.2% | +4.1% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-05-19 | 77/100 | Uptrend | +8.9% | +22.1% |
| 2026-04-27 | 77/100 | Consolidation | -9.8% | -10.7% |
| 2023-03-22 | 73/100 | ✓ Uptrend | +6.6% | +40.6% |
| 2019-06-24 | 72/100 | Uptrend | +5.1% | -2.3% |
| 2019-02-08 | 72/100 | Consolidation | +2.8% | +13.4% |
| 2020-04-24 | 72/100 | Consolidation | +23.6% | +27.2% |
| 2019-05-02 | 71/100 | Uptrend | -7.8% | +1.8% |
| 2019-04-15 | 69/100 | Uptrend | +0.6% | +12.0% |
| 2020-05-12 | 69/100 | ✓ Uptrend | +12.7% | +26.3% |
| 2018-04-30 | 68/100 | Consolidation | +8.0% | +26.5% |
| 2021-03-23 | 68/100 | ✓ Uptrend | +3.7% | +15.8% |
| 2025-12-08 | 68/100 | Consolidation | -2.7% | -3.3% |
| 2026-02-02 | 67/100 | Uptrend | -7.3% | -5.3% |
| 2025-06-03 | 66/100 | Uptrend | +7.0% | +12.6% |
| 2026-06-04 | 65/100 | Consolidation | -4.3% | -8.8% |
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 XLC (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
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
9d ago · $653.69
Evidence: Euphoria score crossed 55 (now 59)
What happened after
16d ago · $612.94
Evidence: Narrative Gap moved from 10 to 51 day-over-day
What happened after
16d ago · $617.48
Evidence: FOMO score jumped from 6 to 47 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
40
Quality
63
Value
38
Momentum
86
Risk
62
Sentiment
68
Fundamental
86
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING META...
Recent media coverage of Meta Platforms highlights two major themes: a **$18 billion lawsuit settlement** resolving a significant legal dispute, and its **expanding AI infrastructure investments**, including a delayed but long-term energy deal with Constellation Energy for an Illinois nuclear plant. Additionally, Meta is positioned among AI-driven tech leaders, with indirect references to its growing role alongside competitors like OpenAI and Anthropic in the AI market.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Meta Platforms. News trend score: 68. Reason: 8 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
43
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
42
Psychology
66
Fundamentals
86
Technical
86
Valuation
38
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.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Price (3M)
+15%
Market Narrative
81
Fundamental Reality
42
Narrative Gap
+39
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
META’s psychology is dominated by **overconfidence**, as traders appear to justify lofty valuations (+52% above DCF) with momentum (+13% ROC) outstripping fundamentals. The **narrative-reality gap (27 points)**—where optimism (69) far exceeds measurable reality (42)—amplifies this bias, while **FOMO (45)** and **herding (45)** act as secondary drivers. The key question: *Is the disconnect between price and fundamentals sustainable, or will it trigger a re-evaluation?* The absence of panic (score 3) suggests complacency, but the gap itself may be the most fragile anchor.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 06:46 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"AI Is Splitting the Magnificent Seven Into Winners and Laggards"
"first contracted dollar is still nine months away"
"Anthropic joins Meta and OpenAI as a named anchor customer"
"Meta Platforms Settles Major Lawsuit, Pays $18 Billion"
🧠 Market Brain events driving this
📈 21D 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
Edgar Lawrence Smith — 94/100
🔴 Weakest match
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — 10/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Based on his documented principles, Edgar Lawrence Smith's model estimates META is a prime candidate for a long-term buy-and-hold strategy, while Walter Bagehot's criteria emphasize the company's strong liquidity and ability to survive credit stress. Conversely, value-oriented and cycle-focused models express deep skepticism; Benjamin Graham's frameworks indicate the stock fails basic defensive and margin-of-safety requirements, and Howard Marks' cycle methodology flags late-cycle valuation risks. Meanwhile, momentum and technical perspectives modeled on Jesse Livermore and Samuel Armstrong Nelson see a lack of a clear trend alongside stretched, overbought conditions. Ultimately, the methodologies divide sharply between long-term compounding and liquidity frameworks that score the stock highly and value, market-timing, or index strategies that urge caution.
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 94
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 93
Strong liquidity — would likely survive a real credit squeeze
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟢 71
Positive trend — the price action Livermore looked for
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟢 68
Reasonable capital-preservation profile
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟢 65
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)
🟡 53
Mixed — growth exists but the price already reflects much of it
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 50
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 48
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 42
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
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 39
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 36
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
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)
🔴 30
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🔴 10
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 (9 bullish · 1 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 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
82.0%
Operating Margin
41.4%
Net Margin
30.1%
EBITDA Margin
50.7%
ROE
27.8%
ROA
16.5%
ROIC
—
EPS
$23.98
Cash
$35.87B
Total Debt
$58.74B
Current Ratio
2.60
Debt/Equity
0.27
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 15.6.2026 | $0.525 |
| 14.6.2026 | $0.525 |
| 16.3.2026 | $0.525 |
| 15.3.2026 | $0.525 |
| 15.12.2025 | $0.525 |
| 14.12.2025 | $0.525 |
| 22.9.2025 | $0.525 |
| 21.9.2025 | $0.525 |
| 16.6.2025 | $0.525 |
| 15.6.2025 | $0.525 |
| 14.3.2025 | $0.525 |
| 13.3.2025 | $0.525 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$665.75
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$403.60
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-39.4%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
19.9%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 19.9% | $55.30B | $50.73B |
| 2 | 15.6% | $63.91B | $53.79B |
| 3 | 11.2% | $71.08B | $54.89B |
| 4 | 6.9% | $75.95B | $53.81B |
| 5 | 2.5% | $77.85B | $50.60B |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$46.11B
Terminal Value
$1.23T
Present Value of Terminal Value
$797.91B
Enterprise Value
$1.06T
Net Debt
$22.87B
Equity Value
$1.04T
*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
$84.40
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$73.43
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 8 positive, 7 neutral, 5 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Benzinga · 19.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 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
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Meta Platforms (META) 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.
META 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, META's estimated fair value is $403.60, which is 39.4% below the current price of $665.75. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
META's technical score is 86/100, 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: Revenue growth (last year): 22.2%; Operating margin is stable or improving over time; Return on equity (ROE): 27.8% — strong.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $403.60 vs. price $665.75 (-39.4%); Earnings per share (EPS) growth: -1.6%; Free cash flow growth: -14.7%.
Yes — META 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 25 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cox Christopher K | Open Market Sale | 9.9.2026 | 18,578 | -18,578 | $650.21 |
| Cox Christopher K | Open Market Sale | 9.9.2026 | 1,422 | -1,422 | $651.15 |
| Olivan Javier | Open Market Sale | 8.9.2026 | 304 | -304 | $618.00 |
| Olivan Javier | Open Market Sale | 8.9.2026 | 52 | -52 | $612.21 |
| Olivan Javier | Open Market Sale | 8.9.2026 | 52 | -52 | $620.27 |
| Olivan Javier | Open Market Sale | 8.9.2026 | 40 | -40 | $613.30 |
| Olivan Javier | Open Market Sale | 8.9.2026 | 473 | -473 | $616.79 |
| Olivan Javier | Open Market Sale | 8.9.2026 | 200 | -200 | $614.49 |
| Olivan Javier | Open Market Sale | 8.9.2026 | 354 | -354 | $615.88 |
| Olivan Javier | Open Market Sale | 8.9.2026 | 157 | -157 | $619.11 |
| Olivan Javier | Open Market Sale | 8.9.2026 | 24 | -24 | $622.99 |
| Olivan Javier | Open Market Sale | 8.9.2026 | 40 | -40 | $621.03 |
| Olivan Javier | Open Market Sale | 8.9.2026 | 328 | -328 | $616.06 |
| Olivan Javier | Open Market Sale | 8.9.2026 | 120 | -120 | $618.93 |
| Olivan Javier | Open Market Sale | 8.9.2026 | 328 | -328 | $616.06 |
| Olivan Javier | Open Market Sale | 8.9.2026 | 555 | -555 | $617.28 |
| Olivan Javier | Open Market Sale | 8.9.2026 | 529 | -529 | $618.18 |
| Olivan Javier | Open Market Sale | 8.9.2026 | 855 | -855 | $616.32 |
| Olivan Javier | Open Market Sale | 8.9.2026 | 78 | -78 | $620.37 |
| Olivan Javier | Open Market Sale | 8.9.2026 | 228 | -228 | $616.06 |
| Olivan Javier | Open Market Sale | 8.9.2026 | 258 | -258 | $612.99 |
| Olivan Javier | Open Market Sale | 8.9.2026 | 117 | -117 | $614.22 |
| Olivan Javier | Open Market Sale | 8.9.2026 | 262 | -262 | $615.23 |
| Anderson Aaron | Open Market Sale | 3.9.2026 | 3,240 | -3,240 | $618.06 |
| Bosworth Andrew | Open Market Sale | 18.8.2026 | 7,848 | -7,848 | $558.00 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
28,807,174 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 31,458,758 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
48.7% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 39.9% 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