Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Information Technology · ·
$363.58
▼ $11.48 (-3.1%)
Market data updated: 09/19 07:47 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/18/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
$297.41B
Day Range
$356.00 - $376.01
52-Week Range
$139.57 - $398.88
Beta
—
Next Earnings
17.11.2026
Support
$308.54
Resistance
$398.88
PANW is a stock from the Technology sector — Software, hardware, chip, and computing-services companies — revenue tied to the pace of innovation and upgrade cycles.
+75.2% (1Y)
Strengths: 10/25 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
🟢 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): 24.5%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
Daily volatility (ATR)
ATR: 5.3% of price
Risk
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
73/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
86/100
Analog Quality
+9.4%
Median 40D Outcome
56/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
87%
+4.2% … +13.3%
🟡 Base
7%
+0.3% … +0.3%
🔴 Bearish
7%
-9.5% … -9.5%
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, 87% (95% CI 62%–96%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of +6.4%.
Echo #1 — Trend Acceleration
6 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 | 53% (30%–75%) | +1.3% | -0.8% … +5.9% | +0.8% |
| 10D | 93% (70%–99%) | +3.4% | +2.4% … +5.7% | +1.7% |
| 20D | 87% (62%–96%) | +6.4% | +2.3% … +12.2% | +2.8% |
| 40D | 73% (48%–89%) | +9.4% | +1.1% … +16.5% | +5.1% |
| 60D | 73% (48%–89%) | +9.9% | +0.2% … +19.9% | +7.2% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-02-01 | 73/100 | Consolidation | +13.5% | +14.8% |
| 2023-08-22 | 73/100 | ✓ High Volatility | +0.3% | +9.2% |
| 2025-01-24 | 71/100 | Consolidation | +1.4% | -12.8% |
| 2023-10-05 | 68/100 | Consolidation | +5.7% | +22.0% |
| 2021-05-28 | 67/100 | Uptrend | +4.2% | +21.6% |
| 2020-01-08 | 67/100 | Uptrend | +3.1% | -31.8% |
| 2020-11-10 | 67/100 | Consolidation | +24.5% | +58.8% |
| 2021-06-16 | 66/100 | Uptrend | +6.7% | +29.3% |
| 2020-07-02 | 66/100 | Uptrend | +11.0% | +6.7% |
| 2022-03-15 | 66/100 | High Volatility | +13.3% | -4.4% |
| 2024-08-15 | 66/100 | Uptrend | +1.1% | +14.0% |
| 2025-03-19 | 65/100 | Consolidation | -9.5% | +4.7% |
| 2024-09-24 | 65/100 | Uptrend | +9.5% | +9.9% |
| 2026-06-16 | 64/100 | High Volatility | +26.5% | +18.1% |
| 2025-05-30 | 64/100 | Uptrend | +6.4% | -4.3% |
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 XLK (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
59
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
46
Quality
58
Value
45
Momentum
79
Risk
34
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
41
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING PANW...
Recent media coverage of Palo Alto Networks (PANW) has centered on its stock performance and investor interest, with a notable focus on its **70% surge in XSIAM (Extended Security Incident and Anomaly Management) annual recurring revenue (ARR) in Q4 FY26**, sparking speculation about sustained growth momentum. Additionally, a **Phillip Securities downgrade to Neutral**—lowering its price target—highlighted analyst caution amid broader market trends. While broader analyst calls and sector comparisons (e.g., SpaceX, Intel) were mentioned, PANW’s stock rally was briefly noted alongside Dell and Snap in overnight trading. No substantive operational or product updates were reported.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Palo Alto Networks. News trend score: 100. Reason: 14 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 2 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
42
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
40
Psychology
50
Fundamentals
41
Technical
79
Valuation
45
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own 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 price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price (3M)
+25%
Market Narrative
64
Fundamental Reality
40
Narrative Gap
+24
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior suggests a disconnect between PANW’s valuation (+23.5% above 200-day average) and its weak momentum (-3.6% ROC), with euphoria scoring highest despite neutral RSI (44). The narrative gap (16 points) hints at optimism outpacing fundamentals. Herding is absent, as the stock outperformed peers, but FOMO and panic signals are muted by volume spikes alone. The key question: is the premium justified, or will sentiment correct as momentum lags?
Updated: 09/09/2026, 07:04 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Phillip Securities Downgrades Palo Alto Networks to Neutral From Accumulate, Adjusts PT to $346 From $320"
📈 15D 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 — 65/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide among methodologies, with some seeing it as a tactical opportunity and others flagging it as a high-risk or overvalued bet. Samuel Armstrong Nelson’s near-perfect score suggests he’d view the stock’s cycle as oversold and ripe for a rebound, while Jack Schwager’s disciplined setup and favorable reward/risk ratio imply a structured, low-leverage play. Meanwhile, Philip Fisher and Edgar Lawrence Smith acknowledge its merits but stop short of calling it exceptional or a long-term core holding, reflecting a more cautious, quality-focused stance. On the opposite end, Benjamin Graham and Morgan Housel dismiss it outright—Graham’s rigid defensive criteria and Housel’s aversion to volatility make it a non-starter, while Howard Marks and Gerald Loeb warn of late-cycle risks or excessive risk-taking. The contrast highlights a tension between cyclical traders (like Nelson and Schwager) and value/defensive investors (Graham, Loeb) who prioritize safety and structural advantages.
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 63
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)
🟡 58
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 53
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 47
Mixed — growth exists but the price already reflects much of it
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 40
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 37
Pattern consistent with a crowd delusion Mackay would flag
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)
🔴 35
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 24
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 21
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 17
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 16
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 11
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
🔴 2
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)
🔴 0
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 0
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
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 (7 bullish · 1 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.
Gross Margin
70.4%
Operating Margin
6.1%
Net Margin
2.7%
EBITDA Margin
13.5%
ROE
1.1%
ROA
0.6%
ROIC
—
EPS
$0.41
Cash
$2.51B
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
0.87
Debt/Equity
—
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
$35.98
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$2.01
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 14 positive, 4 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
ChartMill · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
ChartMill · 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
SeekingAlpha · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Palo Alto Networks (PANW) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 59/100, 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.
PANW currently scores 59/100 (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.
PANW's technical score is 79/100, 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): 24.5%; Operating margin is stable or improving over time; Price is above the 50-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: ATR: 5.3% of price; Current ratio: 0.87; Earnings per share (EPS) growth: -75.0%.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for PANW.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 16 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Paul Josh D. | Open Market Sale | 1.9.2026 | 900 | -900 | $373.68 |
| Thorning-Schmidt Helle | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.9.2026 | 211 | -211 | $382.13 |
| Paul Josh D. | Open Market Sale | 25.8.2026 | 900 | -900 | $353.77 |
| Paul Josh D. | Open Market Sale | 25.8.2026 | 73,354 | -900 | $353.77 |
| Paul Josh D. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 21.8.2026 | 74,254 | -1,529 | $349.56 |
| Paul Josh D. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 21.8.2026 | 1,529 | -1,529 | $349.56 |
| Paul Josh D. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.8.2026 | 3,861 | -3,861 | $331.83 |
| Paul Josh D. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.8.2026 | 75,783 | -3,861 | $331.83 |
| Thorning-Schmidt Helle | Open Market Sale | 7.7.2026 | 700 | -700 | $346.85 |
| Thorning-Schmidt Helle | Open Market Sale | 7.7.2026 | 5,898 | -700 | $346.85 |
| Bawa Aparna | Open Market Sale | 1.7.2026 | 290 | -290 | $348.74 |
| Paul Josh D. | Open Market Sale | 1.7.2026 | 900 | -900 | $345.00 |
| Paul Josh D. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.7.2026 | 1,092 | -1,092 | $341.02 |
| Bawa Aparna | Open Market Sale | 1.7.2026 | 6,437 | -290 | $348.74 |
| Paul Josh D. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.7.2026 | 80,544 | -1,092 | $341.02 |
| Paul Josh D. | Open Market Sale | 1.7.2026 | 79,644 | -900 | $345.00 |
| Arora Nikesh | I | 30.6.2026 | 865,090 | -865,090 | — |
| Arora Nikesh | I | 30.6.2026 | 2,093,369 | -865,090 | — |
| Bawa Aparna | Open Market Sale | 29.6.2026 | 305 | -305 | $328.14 |
| Bawa Aparna | Open Market Sale | 29.6.2026 | 327 | -327 | $309.83 |
| Bawa Aparna | Open Market Sale | 29.6.2026 | 7,032 | -327 | $309.83 |
| Bawa Aparna | Open Market Sale | 29.6.2026 | 6,727 | -305 | $328.14 |
| Golechha Dipak | Open Market Sale | 23.6.2026 | 214 | -214 | $291.84 |
| Golechha Dipak | Open Market Sale | 23.6.2026 | 886 | -886 | $291.07 |
| Golechha Dipak | Open Market Sale | 23.6.2026 | 2,100 | -2,100 | $290.03 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
21,411,706 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 21,000,807 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
53.5% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 54.4% 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