Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Technology · ·
68.78 ₪
▲ 0.00 ₪ (+0.0%)
Market data updated: 09/19 11:29 AM
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
68.04 ₪ - 70.57 ₪
52-Week Range
55.52 ₪ - 97.97 ₪
Beta
—
Next Earnings
—
Support
60.11 ₪
Resistance
74.37 ₪
ONE.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.
-17.7% (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: 0.30 (3y annualized return 12.4% / max drawdown 42.1%)
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.
ONE.TA demonstrates a robust overall investor score of 78, classified as **STRONG**, driven primarily by its exceptional technical performance. The stock sits comfortably above both its 50-day and 200-day moving averages, supported by a positive MACD histogram and an RSI of 66.2, indicating healthy upward momentum. Over the past three months, it has outperformed its index by +13.3%, reinforcing its relative strength. However, the risk profile introduces notable caution: a Calmar ratio of 0.37—reflecting a 42.1% max drawdown against a 15.5% annualized return—highlights volatility sensitivity. News sentiment, while mildly positive, remains neutral overall, lacking clear catalysts to drive sustained momentum beyond technical tailwinds. The blend of strong technicals and elevated risk underscores a balanced but volatile opportunity, where short-term gains may come with heightened drawdown risks.
The stock exhibits strong bullish momentum, with prices above both the 50-day and 200-day moving averages, a positive MACD histogram, and an RSI of 66.2. The %K at 79.7 suggests neutral stochastic momentum, but overall technical indicators are highly favorable.
Technical strength signals near-term buying pressure and potential for continued upward movement, making it a key driver of the stock’s STRONG rating.
News coverage is predominantly neutral, with only one mildly positive article (Nvidia-related) amid broader industry and macroeconomic themes. No direct company-specific catalysts are present.
Lack of strong news sentiment limits upside potential beyond technical drivers, which may constrain investor confidence.
The stock’s Calmar ratio of 0.37 indicates high volatility, with a 42.1% max drawdown relative to a 15.5% annualized return. ATR at 3.1% of price suggests moderate volatility but not extreme.
The elevated drawdown risk implies potential for sharp corrections, which could offset short-term gains and deter risk-averse investors.
StockIQ conclusion
ONE.TA’s STRONG rating stems from its strong technical performance, with prices above critical moving averages and positive momentum indicators. However, the stock’s elevated risk profile—evidenced by a high drawdown risk and neutral news sentiment—introduces caution. While short-term gains are supported by relative outperformance and bullish technicals, investors should remain mindful of volatility and the absence of strong catalysts. The score reflects a balanced outlook where technical strength is offset by inherent risk, requiring careful monitoring of future developments.
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
49
Risk
42
Sentiment
56
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 ONE.TA...
The provided sources do not mention One Technologies Ltd, so there is no available recent English-language media coverage to summarize. No details about the company’s recent activities, news, or developments can be accurately reflected based on these headlines.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about One Technologies Ltd. News trend score: 56. Reason: 2 of the last 10 articles are positive, versus 1 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
5
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
50
Fundamentals
—
Technical
49
Valuation
—
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
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.
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)
+8%
Market Narrative
42
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
-8
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior here suggests a **FOMO-driven rally**, reinforced by strong momentum, elevated volume, and overbought technicals (RSI 66, %B 0.87). However, the **narrative gap (7 points)** hints at a disconnect—positive sentiment (56/100) may not fully reflect underlying fundamentals. Anchoring near resistance (3.7%) could limit upside, while the absence of panic or herding implies discipline remains. The key question: *Will traders exit near resistance, or will momentum sustain despite the gap?*
Updated: 09/06/2026, 01:40 AM
What could change this?
📈 10D 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 — 92/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jesse Livermore — 22/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide between methodologies, with some traders seeing clear opportunities while others flag significant risks. Jesse Livermore’s high score reflects his focus on price momentum, suggesting the stock’s upward trend aligns with his speculative, trend-following approach. Meanwhile, Charles Mackay’s moderate score hints at early signs of crowd-driven excitement, a hallmark of his cautionary take on speculative bubbles. In contrast, the majority of value-oriented investors—like Graham, Fisher, or Lynch—are stymied by insufficient data, leaving them unable to apply their core principles. Even Howard Marks, who acknowledges a solid business, questions whether expectations are already baked into the price, while Nelson’s low score warns of potential overvaluation in the cycle. The efficient-market camp dismisses the stock as unworthy of active picking, while Housel’s volatility warning underscores the emotional toll such swings could take on patient investors.
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 100
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 92
No obvious signs of crowd mania
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)
🟢 73
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 65
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 64
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
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)
🟡 43
Moderate risk 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)
🟡 40
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)
🟡 37
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)
🟡 37
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)
🔴 22
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 255 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟡 Indicators are mixed — no clear bias (4 bullish · 5 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 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.
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 31.8.2026 | 57.706 ₪ |
| 1.6.2026 | 61.781 ₪ |
| 31.5.2026 | 61.781 ₪ |
| 27.3.2026 | 57.436 ₪ |
| 26.3.2026 | 57.436 ₪ |
| 27.11.2025 | 65.584 ₪ |
| 26.11.2025 | 65.584 ₪ |
| 28.8.2025 | 61.406 ₪ |
| 27.8.2025 | 61.406 ₪ |
| 29.5.2025 | 55.880 ₪ |
| 28.5.2025 | 55.880 ₪ |
| 27.3.2025 | 62.306 ₪ |
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 2 positive, 7 neutral, 1 negative out of the last 10 articles.
Yahoo Finance Video · 29.8.2026
AFP · 29.8.2026
Yahoo Finance · 29.8.2026
Motley Fool · 29.8.2026
Motley Fool · 29.8.2026
The Tribune-Democrat, Johnstown, Pa. · 29.8.2026
BeInCrypto · 29.8.2026
Moneywise · 29.8.2026
Yahoo Personal Finance · 29.8.2026
AFP · 29.8.2026
StockIQ doesn't currently have enough real data to compute a reliable score for One Technologies Ltd (ONE.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 ONE.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.
ONE.TA's technical score is 49/100, 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 52.9 — healthy positive momentum; +10.1% over the last 3 months relative to the index.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Calmar: 0.30 (3y annualized return 12.4% / max drawdown 42.1%); Price is below the 200-day average; MACD histogram is negative — falling momentum.
Yes — ONE.TA has a real recorded dividend payment history on StockIQ. See the Dividends section on this page for the actual per-share amounts and dates.
Full breakdown of every data type and its source: Data Sources · Methodology