Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Technology · ·
308.60 ₪
▼ 8.90 ₪ (-2.8%)
Market data updated: 09/17 03:46 AM
News analyzed: 09/17/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
308.00 ₪ - 315.20 ₪
52-Week Range
242.60 ₪ - 519.40 ₪
Beta
—
Next Earnings
—
NICE.TA is a stock from the Technology sector — Software, hardware, chip, and computing-services companies — revenue tied to the pace of innovation and upgrade cycles.
-39.0% (1Y)
🟡 Moderate
Strengths: 4/12 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
🟡 Mixed
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Price vs. SMA 50
Price is above the 50-day average
Technical
Biggest negative driver
Calmar Ratio (return vs. drawdown)
Calmar: -0.31 (3y annualized return -23.5% / max drawdown 74.8%)
Risk
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
NO RELIABLE ECHO FOUND
Only 0 historical analog(s) found after removing overlapping dates — too few for a statistically meaningful comparison.
Historical matches considered: 0
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.
NICE.TA receives an overall Investor Score of 72, earning a STRONG rating. This evaluation is primarily driven by powerful technical metrics, offset by elevated historical drawdown risk and neutral news sentiment. The technical category registers a high score of 87, reflecting solid price action and bullish momentum indicators. Specifically, the stock's price trades above both its 50-day and 200-day moving averages, indicating established short-term and long-term uptrends. Momentum remains positive with a positive MACD histogram and an RSI of 58.9, which signifies healthy upward strength without reaching overbought conditions. Additionally, the Stochastic %K indicator stands at 77.6, remaining in a neutral range. Relative strength is also apparent, as NICE.TA has outperformed its benchmark index by +7.9% over the past three months. Conversely, the news category holds a neutral score of 50 due to an absence of specific news evidence in the dataset. The risk category shows a weaker score of 42, highlighting underlying volatility and weak multi-year risk-adjusted returns. The Average True Range (ATR) represents 3.8% of the stock's price, demonstrating moderate short-term volatility. More critically, the stock has a negative Calmar ratio of -0.32, driven by a 3-year annualized return of -24.2% alongside a severe maximum drawdown of 74.8%. Ultimately, while historical drawdowns drag down the risk score, the current strong price momentum and technical backdrop support the overall score of 72.
NICE.TA demonstrates strong chart technicals with a score of 87, trading above its 50-day and 200-day moving averages while showing a positive MACD histogram, an RSI of 58.9, and a Stochastic %K of 77.6.
Trading above key moving averages with positive momentum confirms robust short- and long-term trend support.
The news category received a neutral score of 50, as no active news evidence was present in the provided dataset.
A neutral score indicates that recent public headlines are not currently driving or hindering the stock's valuation.
Risk registers a score of 42, reflecting an ATR of 3.8% of price and a Calmar ratio of -0.32 due to a -24.2% 3-year annualized return and a 74.8% max drawdown.
Significant historical drawdowns and moderate volatility highlight potential downside exposure during broad pullbacks.
StockIQ conclusion
NICE.TA carries an Investor Score of 72 and a STRONG rating, anchored by excellent technical health scoring 87. The stock maintains positive momentum above its 50-day and 200-day moving averages and has outpaced its index by +7.9% over 3 months. However, historical risk metrics present a caution flag, marked by a risk score of 42 and a 74.8% maximum drawdown over three years.
Written automatically from the computed data shown on this page only — not investment advice.
🗓️ 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
50
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
No data available
Quality
No data available
Value
No data available
Momentum
51
Risk
42
Sentiment
50
Fundamental
No data available
Institutional
No data available
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
Not enough comparably-scored stocks yet to show similar matches.
SCANNING NICE.TA...
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
6
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
8
Fundamentals
—
Technical
51
Valuation
—
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
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 (3M)
+25%
Market Narrative
38
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
-12
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior for NICE.TA suggests a **cautious optimism** driven by FOMO (28) and anchoring (37) near resistance. Momentum and 200-day outperformance hint at euphoria, but neutral sentiment and lack of panic selling temper overconfidence. The key question: will traders hold near resistance, or will the slight narrative-reality gap (3) prompt a re-evaluation? Herding is absent, as peers outperformed today, reinforcing individual positioning over trend-following.
Updated: 09/07/2026, 05:51 PM
What could change this?
📈 7D Investor Psychology
Signal classification confidence: Medium (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
Charles Mackay — 95/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jesse Livermore — 11/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The methodologies here reveal a stark divide between cautious and outright bearish signals about this stock. On one end, **Charles Mackay**’s score of 72 suggests no obvious signs of crowd mania, implying a relatively neutral stance—though his focus on speculative bubbles doesn’t necessarily rule out the stock outright. Meanwhile, **Howard Marks** leans mixed, acknowledging a potentially strong business but warning that expectations may already be inflated, reflecting a nuanced concern about valuation. However, the rest of the pack leans heavily negative: **Gerald Loeb** and **Jack Schwager** flag severe risks, with Schwager’s mechanical wizards outright rejecting the setup, while **Samuel Nelson** and **Morgan Housel** see it as overbought or volatile enough to deter patient investors. Even the ‘mixed’ verdicts from **Howard Marks (Market Cycle)** and **Efficient-Market theorists** (Malkiel/Bogle) suggest weak evidence for active picking. The lack of decisive ‘buy’ signals—paired with the low scores from **Loeb, Schwager, and Housel**—implies a consensus leaning toward caution or outright avoidance, despite Mackay’s more detached perspective.
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 95
No obvious signs of crowd mania
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)
🟢 84
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 69
Risk appears reasonably priced — no obvious cycle-timing red flag
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 68
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 50
Not enough balance-sheet/valuation data for a real Graham read
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 50
Not enough fundamentals data for a real Fisher read
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 50
Not enough growth data for a real Lynch read
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 50
Not enough balance-sheet data for a real Bagehot read
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 50
Not enough growth/insider data for a real Veblen read
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 50
Not enough valuation data for a real Enterprising-Graham read
Key question
Is the stock statistically cheap enough to justify the extra risk?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 35
Risk profile Loeb would flag as a real threat to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 28
Weak case — Malkiel/Bogle would say a low-cost index is the simpler bet
Key question
Do I actually have an edge here, or do I just think I do?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 19
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🔴 15
Not enough dividend/growth data for a real Smith read
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 25%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 12
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?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 30%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 11
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
Based on the last 253 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟡 Indicators are mixed — no clear bias (4 bullish · 4 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.
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.
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 0 positive, 0 neutral, 0 negative out of the last 0 articles.
No recent articles found for this stock.
StockIQ doesn't currently have enough real data to compute a reliable score for NICE Ltd (NICE.TA) — only 3 of 7 categories are available right now. Rather than show a misleading number, this page shows which data is missing instead.
StockIQ doesn't give buy/sell recommendations — and for NICE.TA specifically, there currently isn't enough real data (only 3 of 7 categories available) to state even a factual score reliably. Check back once more data is available.
NICE.TA's technical score is 51/100, which currently reads as neutral — 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: Price is above the 50-day average; RSI 50.2 — healthy positive momentum; +24.7% over the last 3 months relative to the index.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Calmar: -0.31 (3y annualized return -23.5% / max drawdown 74.8%); Price is below the 200-day average; MACD histogram is negative — falling momentum.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for NICE.TA.
Full breakdown of every data type and its source: Data Sources · Methodology