Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$18.84
▼ $0.35 (-1.8%)
Market data updated: 09/19 12:43 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
$4.13B
Day Range
$18.68 - $19.40
52-Week Range
$4.32 - $21.27
Beta
—
Next Earnings
04.11.2026
Support
$17.71
Resistance
$21.27
RLAY is a stock from the Healthcare sector — Pharmaceuticals, biotech, medical devices, and health insurance — less sensitive to economic cycles, but exposed to regulation and FDA approvals.
+314.1% (1Y)
Strengths: 9/26 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
Revenue growth (last year)
Revenue growth (last year): 53.4%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: -$35.07 vs. price $18.84 (-286.2%)
Fair Value
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (73/100), but fair-value analysis scores this stock as relatively expensive (38/100) — the growth story and the current price aren't fully aligned.
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
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
73
Quality
42
Value
38
Momentum
52
Risk
40
Sentiment
80
Fundamental
30
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 Relay Therapeutics has focused on investor engagement and internal activity. The company announced participation in two major investor conferences in September, signaling confidence in its clinical-stage precision medicine pipeline for cancer and genetic diseases. Analysts, including HC Wainwright, maintained a bullish stance, raising the price target to $29. Additionally, insider sales—including the CFO’s recent $350,000 share disposition—were noted, though the company retains significant stakeholder interest. No substantive pipeline updates were reported.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Relay Therapeutics, Inc.. News trend score: 80. Reason: 6 of the last 20 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
38
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
51
Psychology
69
Fundamentals
30
Technical
52
Valuation
38
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, 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)
+19%
Market Narrative
58
Fundamental Reality
51
Narrative Gap
+7
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
RLAY’s psychology score (22) reflects a detached, non-emotional market environment where euphoria is paradoxically elevated by valuation metrics despite weak momentum. The narrative gap (-1) suggests minor misalignment, but no dominant bias emerges—evidence is scattered and inconclusive. The key question is whether the stock’s valuation premium (+16.8%) will sustain or if momentum weakness (-3.4% ROC) will eventually reassert. Subdued volume (0.80x) and neutral RSI (46) further dampen speculative extremes.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 07:20 AM
👥 What the crowd believes
"Catinazzo's pre-arranged sale reduced his direct stake by 11%"
"HC Wainwright & Co. analyst raises Relay Therapeutics price target to $29"
"Relay Therapeutics to participate in two upcoming investor conferences in September"
📈 9D 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
Walter Bagehot — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Thorstein Veblen — 12/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for RLAY reflects deep methodological contrasts between investors prioritizing stability, growth, or contrarian timing. Walter Bagehot’s near-perfect score highlights his focus on liquidity and resilience during crises, while Peter Lynch and Samuel Armstrong Nelson’s high scores suggest they see upside in growth potential or cyclical oversold conditions. Meanwhile, the cluster of mid-to-low scores—from Howard Marks to Philip Fisher—points to concerns about overvaluation, risk, or lack of quality, with Fisher and Livermore outright dismissing it for failing core principles of growth or trend alignment. Morgan Housel’s low score underscores volatility as a behavioral red flag, while Thorstein Veblen’s near-minimal score flags speculative excess, illustrating how even the same stock can be viewed as either a defensive anchor or a speculative bubble depending on the lens.
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 100
Strong liquidity — would likely survive a real credit squeeze
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 81
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 60
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 50
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 48
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 45
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 44
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?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 45%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 43
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 35%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 42
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)
🟡 40
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 39
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 39
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 36
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 25
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 24
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 12
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
Based on the last 280 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.
A trading range after an advance, but still without clear (volume-based) confirmation of a distribution phase.
Low confidence
$17.71
Range Bottom
$21.27
Range Top
50
Trading Days in Range
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
—
Operating Margin
-1971.6%
Net Margin
-1800.6%
EBITDA Margin
-1971.6%
ROE
-48.8%
ROA
-44.5%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$1.61
Cash
$84.02M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
22.61
Debt/Equity
—
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$18.84
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$35.07
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-286.2%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
25.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 25.0% | $-294.83M | $-270.49M |
| 2 | 19.4% | $-351.95M | $-296.23M |
| 3 | 13.8% | $-400.35M | $-309.14M |
| 4 | 8.1% | $-432.88M | $-306.66M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-443.70M | $-288.37M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-235.87M
Terminal Value
$-7.00B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-4.55B
Enterprise Value
$-6.02B
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$-6.02B
*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
$3.30
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$3.30
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 6 positive, 13 neutral, 1 negative out of the last 20 articles.
SeekingAlpha · 16.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 10.9.2026
MT Newswires · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
Zacks · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 2.9.2026
Motley Fool · 2.9.2026
Yahoo · 1.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 1.9.2026
Investor's Business Daily · 21.8.2026
Benzinga · 20.8.2026
Simply Wall St. · 20.8.2026
MT Newswires · 18.8.2026
MT Newswires · 18.8.2026
Zacks · 18.8.2026
Zacks · 17.8.2026
Benzinga · 14.8.2026
Barchart · 13.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 10.8.2026
Benzinga · 10.8.2026
Relay Therapeutics, Inc. (RLAY) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 50/100, 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.
RLAY currently scores 50/100 (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, RLAY's estimated fair value is -$35.07, which is 286.2% below the current price of $18.84. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
RLAY's technical score is 52/100, 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: Revenue growth (last year): 53.4%; Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 31.8%; Current ratio: 22.61.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: -$35.07 vs. price $18.84 (-286.2%); Operating margin: -1971.6% (negative); Net margin: -1800.6% (negative).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for RLAY.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 23 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patel Sanjiv | Open Market Sale | 8.9.2026 | 48,199 | -48,199 | $18.94 |
| Bergstrom Donald A | Open Market Sale | 8.9.2026 | 8,530 | -8,530 | $18.97 |
| Catinazzo Thomas | Open Market Sale | 8.9.2026 | 17,717 | -17,717 | $18.94 |
| Rahmer Peter | Open Market Sale | 26.8.2026 | 4,508 | -4,508 | $20.03 |
| Rahmer Peter | Open Market Sale | 26.8.2026 | 223,657 | -4,508 | $20.03 |
| SVF Pauling (Cayman) Ltd | Open Market Sale | 25.8.2026 | 6,000,000 | -6,000,000 | $19.40 |
| SVF Pauling (Cayman) Ltd | Open Market Sale | 25.8.2026 | 21,904,963 | -6,000,000 | $19.40 |
| Patel Sanjiv | Open Market Sale | 17.8.2026 | 48,199 | -48,199 | $20.33 |
| Catinazzo Thomas | Open Market Sale | 14.8.2026 | 17,717 | -17,717 | $19.74 |
| Rahmer Peter | Open Market Sale | 28.7.2026 | 748 | -748 | $18.61 |
| Catinazzo Thomas | Open Market Sale | 28.7.2026 | 1,459 | -1,459 | $18.61 |
| Bergstrom Donald A | Open Market Sale | 28.7.2026 | 2,237 | -2,237 | $18.61 |
| Bergstrom Donald A | Open Market Sale | 28.7.2026 | 407,660 | -2,237 | $18.61 |
| Rahmer Peter | Open Market Sale | 28.7.2026 | 228,165 | -748 | $18.61 |
| Catinazzo Thomas | Open Market Sale | 28.7.2026 | 158,285 | -1,459 | $18.61 |
| Patel Sanjiv | Open Market Sale | 7.7.2026 | 48,199 | -48,199 | $19.58 |
| Patel Sanjiv | Open Market Sale | 7.7.2026 | 615,898 | -48,199 | $19.58 |
| Catinazzo Thomas | Open Market Sale | 6.7.2026 | 17,717 | -17,717 | $18.69 |
| Bergstrom Donald A | Open Market Sale | 6.7.2026 | 8,660 | -8,660 | $18.71 |
| Bergstrom Donald A | Open Market Sale | 6.7.2026 | 409,897 | -8,660 | $18.71 |
| Catinazzo Thomas | Open Market Sale | 6.7.2026 | 159,744 | -17,717 | $18.69 |
| Rahmer Peter | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 3,056 | +3,056 | $6.95 |
| Rahmer Peter | Open Market Sale | 30.6.2026 | 50,000 | -50,000 | $19.09 |
| Patel Sanjiv | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 3,056 | +3,056 | $6.95 |
| Rahmer Peter | Open Market Sale | 30.6.2026 | 225,857 | -50,000 | $19.09 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
43,550,416 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 40,250,044 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
72.7% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 75.9% 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