Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Technology · ·
$10.37
▼ $0.22 (-2.1%)
Market data updated: 09/20 08:49 PM
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$172.07M
Day Range
$10.32 - $10.50
52-Week Range
$9.40 - $16.74
Beta
—
Next Earnings
10.11.2026
Support
$9.40
Resistance
$14.65
RDCM is a stock from the Technology sector — Software, hardware, chip, and computing-services companies — revenue tied to the pace of innovation and upgrade cycles.
-27.9% (1Y)
🟡 Moderate
Strengths: 4/13 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
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
MACD
MACD histogram is positive — rising momentum
Technical
Biggest negative driver
Calmar Ratio (return vs. drawdown)
Calmar: 0.13 (3y annualized return 5.0% / max drawdown 38.6%)
Risk
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
46
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
47
Risk
42
Sentiment
44
Fundamental
No data available
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 Radcom Ltd. has centered on its **Q2 2026 earnings report**, which showed a **missed revenue and profit estimate**, with adjusted EPS at **$(0.09)**—far below the expected **$0.24**—and total sales of **$11.8 million**, underperforming the **$15.585 million** forecast. Analysts, including Needham’s Ryan Koontz, maintained a **Buy rating** but lowered the price target from **$18 to $14**, citing concerns over declining performance. The company’s leadership discussed challenges during the earnings call, though no major strategic shifts were highlighted.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Radcom Ltd.. News trend score: 44. Reason: 5 of the last 20 articles are negative, versus 4 positive.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
12
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
47
Fundamentals
—
Technical
47
Valuation
—
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
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.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
Price (3M)
-19%
Market Narrative
46
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
-4
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s dominant *Loss Aversion* (57) reflects a clear reluctance to sell further after a 21.8% drop over three months, despite muted volume activity. The absence of *FOMO* or *Euphoria* (scores of 0) aligns with a cautious, risk-averse stance—no urgency to chase gains or panic sell. The *narrative gap* (-16) hints at a disconnect where sentiment (34) lags reality (50), possibly reinforcing hesitation. The key question is whether the stock’s underperformance relative to peers will persist or if a near-term rebound could test the 5.2% support level.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 07:17 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"reported quarterly losses of $(0.09) per share which missed the analyst consensus estimate of $0.24 by 137.5 percent"
"Sales $11.800M Miss $15.585M Estimate"
"affirms FY2026 sales outlook from $57.000 million-$63.000 million vs $67.866 million estimate"
"Radcom (RDCM) Reports Q2 Loss"
📈 12D 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
Morgan Housel — 11/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock splits the historical methodologies into starkly contrasting camps: the most bullish approaches—like Charles Mackay’s crowd-behavior analysis and Howard Marks’ market-cycle assessment—see it as a low-risk, early-cycle opportunity with no signs of speculative frenzy or overextension, scoring near-perfectly. Meanwhile, cyclical thinkers like Samuel Armstrong Nelson also lean positive, viewing it as oversold and favorably positioned. However, the middle ground—represented by disciplined traders like Jack Schwager and Howard Marks’ broader risk framework—remains cautiously optimistic, flagging it as a structured setup with acceptable risk-reward dynamics. On the opposite end, fundamentalists like Benjamin Graham, Philip Fisher, and Peter Lynch are stymied by insufficient data, while contrarian voices like Jesse Livermore and Gerald Loeb outright reject it, citing trend resistance and excessive risk. Even passive investors (Malkiel/Bogle) dismiss it as a suboptimal bet, while behavioral economists like Veblen and Housel warn of speculative overreach or volatility that could deter patient holders. The divide hinges on whether the stock’s cyclical or trend dynamics justify entry—or if its lack of clear fundamentals or speculative undertones make it a red flag.
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)
🟢 89
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)
🟢 73
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 61
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
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%
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%
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 49
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 35
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
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)
🔴 31
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 20
Pattern Veblen would flag as growth pursued for its own sake
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 30%
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)
🔴 11
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 281 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 · 3 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.
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.
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 4 positive, 11 neutral, 5 negative out of the last 20 articles.
SeekingAlpha · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Benzinga · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
PR Newswire · 9.9.2026
Benzinga · 9.9.2026
Motley Fool · 19.8.2026
Moby · 12.8.2026
MarketBeat · 12.8.2026
Benzinga · 12.8.2026
Zacks · 12.8.2026
Associated Press · 12.8.2026
PR Newswire · 12.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 12.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 12.8.2026
Benzinga · 12.8.2026
Benzinga · 12.8.2026
Zacks · 11.8.2026
PR Newswire · 11.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 11.8.2026
StockIQ doesn't currently have enough real data to compute a reliable score for Radcom Ltd. (RDCM) — 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 RDCM 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.
RDCM's technical score is 47/100, 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: MACD histogram is positive — rising momentum; Price is above the SAR point — uptrend; ROC 12 days: 3.6%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Calmar: 0.13 (3y annualized return 5.0% / max drawdown 38.6%); Price is below the 50-day average; Price is below the 200-day average.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for RDCM.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 4 sales out of the last 24 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AMIT RAM | Open Market Sale | 1.6.2026 | 3,000 | -3,000 | $15.65 |
| AMIT RAM | Open Market Sale | 1.6.2026 | 78,813 | -3,000 | $15.65 |
| Aaronson Liat | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.5.2026 | 15,667 | +15,667 | — |
| Levit Guy | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.5.2026 | 20,903 | +20,903 | — |
| Aaronson Liat | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.5.2026 | 20,903 | +20,903 | — |
| Totah Sami | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.5.2026 | 7,900 | +7,900 | — |
| Totah Sami | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.5.2026 | 5,925 | +5,925 | — |
| Jacob Tomer | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.5.2026 | 20,903 | +20,903 | — |
| Jacob Tomer | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.5.2026 | 15,667 | +15,667 | — |
| Levit Guy | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.5.2026 | 15,667 | +15,667 | — |
| Aaronson Liat | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.5.2026 | 15,677 | +15,667 | — |
| Aaronson Liat | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.5.2026 | 20,903 | +20,903 | — |
| Jacob Tomer | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.5.2026 | 15,677 | +15,667 | — |
| Jacob Tomer | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.5.2026 | 20,903 | +20,903 | — |
| Levit Guy | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.5.2026 | 15,677 | +15,667 | — |
| Levit Guy | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.5.2026 | 20,903 | +20,903 | — |
| Totah Sami | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.5.2026 | 30,175 | +5,925 | — |
| Totah Sami | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.5.2026 | 7,900 | +7,900 | — |
| AMIT RAM | Open Market Sale | 20.5.2026 | 3,000 | -3,000 | $13.95 |
| AMIT RAM | Open Market Sale | 20.5.2026 | 81,813 | -3,000 | $13.95 |
| SCHWARTZ RAMI | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.3.2026 | 8,747 | +8,747 | — |
| SCHWARTZ RAMI | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.3.2026 | 6,560 | +6,560 | — |
| SCHWARTZ RAMI | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.3.2026 | 14,261 | +6,560 | — |
| SCHWARTZ RAMI | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.3.2026 | 8,747 | +8,747 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
381,390 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 254,903 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
45.0% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 59.4% 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