Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Technology · ·
$5.53
▼ $0.12 (-2.1%)
Market data updated: 09/20 01:46 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/20/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
$5.51 - $5.65
52-Week Range
$3.81 - $9.28
Beta
—
Next Earnings
15.10.2026
Support
$4.28
Resistance
$6.07
SNAP is a stock from the Technology sector — Software, hardware, chip, and computing-services companies — revenue tied to the pace of innovation and upgrade cycles.
-34.5% (1Y)
Strengths: 14/30 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
Earnings per share (EPS) growth
Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 35.7%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $3.23 vs. price $5.53 (-41.5%)
Fair Value
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (79/100), 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
57
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
5d ago · $5.84
Evidence: FOMO score jumped from 10 to 38 day-over-day
What happened after
Still awaiting outcome
🐂🐻 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
79
Quality
58
Value
38
Momentum
63
Risk
34
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
31
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 Snap Inc. has centered on strategic shifts and leadership changes, with the company’s CEO, Evan Spiegel, announcing a 2027 goal to expand beyond advertising into commerce and retail, though retail analysts remain skeptical. Additionally, Snap promoted Ronan Harris to Chief Commercial Officer, a move highlighted across financial and tech outlets. Other headlines, however, focus on unrelated topics, such as broader critiques of tech tycoons or unrelated company performance, with no direct Snap-specific developments.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Snap Inc.. News trend score: 100. Reason: 12 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
30
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
41
Psychology
49
Fundamentals
31
Technical
63
Valuation
38
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental 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 stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price (3M)
+19%
Market Narrative
81
Fundamental Reality
41
Narrative Gap
+40
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s dominant overconfidence—driven by SNAP’s price momentum vastly exceeding earnings growth and its +68% valuation premium—suggests investors are ignoring fundamental risks. The narrative gap (66 vs. 41) further implies optimism outpaces tangible reality. While euphoria (23) and FOMO (12) coexist, the lack of panic or herding signals confidence remains detached from peers. The key question: *Will fundamentals justify this valuation gap, or will overconfidence erode under stress?*
Updated: 09/09/2026, 09:10 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Snap Appoints EMEA President Ronan Harris as Chief Commercial Officer"
"traders weigh CEO Evan Spiegel’s augmented-reality push"
"Norway Skeptical of Smart Spectacles: Leader in EV Adoption Not Ready to Welcome ‘Pervert’ Glasses"
🧠 Market Brain events driving this
📈 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
Walter Bagehot — 69/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham — 20/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The methodologies for SNAP split sharply between cautious optimism and outright skepticism, reflecting deep philosophical divides in valuation and risk tolerance. Mackay and Bagehot’s mid-range scores suggest a cautious interest—Mackay sees crowd-driven excitement, while Bagehot acknowledges adequate liquidity but stops short of enthusiasm. Meanwhile, Lynch’s mixed verdict hints at a stock that may have priced in its growth potential, leaving little upside for a growth-focused investor. On the other end of the spectrum, Graham’s near-total rejection (20/100) and Loeb’s warning about capital risk highlight a stark contrast with the more forgiving approaches of Marks (cycle) or Fisher, who still find some merit despite not meeting their highest standards. The divide between the ‘defensive’ camp (Graham, Loeb) and the ‘opportunistic’ (Mackay, Lynch) underscores whether the stock’s volatility and speculative traits are worth the potential reward—or a red flag entirely.
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 69
Adequate but not exceptional liquidity
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 66
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)
🟡 61
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 59
Solid, but not the exceptional quality Fisher looked for
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 58
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 56
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 55
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 49
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
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 42
No clear edge either way
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)
🟡 36
Doesn't show the stability Smith's long-term case requires
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 31
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 29
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)
🔴 29
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)
🔴 28
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 20
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 280 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟢 Most indicators support an uptrend (6 bullish · 3 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.
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.
Gross Margin
55.0%
Operating Margin
-9.0%
Net Margin
-7.8%
EBITDA Margin
-6.2%
ROE
-20.2%
ROA
-6.0%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$0.27
Cash
$1.03B
Total Debt
$3.54B
Current Ratio
3.56
Debt/Equity
1.55
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$5.53
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$3.23
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-41.5%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
9.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 9.0% | $476.71M | $437.35M |
| 2 | 7.4% | $512.02M | $430.96M |
| 3 | 5.8% | $541.56M | $418.19M |
| 4 | 4.1% | $563.96M | $399.52M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $578.06M | $375.70M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$437.19M
Terminal Value
$9.12B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$5.92B
Enterprise Value
$7.99B
Net Debt
$2.51B
Equity Value
$5.48B
*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
$1.35
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$0.29
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 12 positive, 6 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Benzinga · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Benzinga · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Benzinga · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Benzinga · 17.9.2026
Benzinga · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Snap Inc. (SNAP) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 57/100, 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.
SNAP currently scores 57/100 (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, SNAP's estimated fair value is $3.23, which is 41.5% below the current price of $5.53. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
SNAP's technical score is 63/100, 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: Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 35.7%; Free cash flow growth: 99.9%; Net income growth: 34.0%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $3.23 vs. price $5.53 (-41.5%); Operating margin: -9.0% (negative); Net margin: -7.8% (negative).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for SNAP.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 6 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Briers Zachary M | Open Market Sale | 3.9.2026 | 11,257 | -11,257 | $6.00 |
| Briers Zachary M | Open Market Sale | 19.8.2026 | 67,540 | -67,540 | $5.08 |
| Hott Douglas | Open Market Sale | 17.8.2026 | 131,884 | -131,884 | $5.20 |
| Briers Zachary M | Open Market Sale | 17.8.2026 | 136,504 | -136,504 | $5.20 |
| Morrow Rebecca | Open Market Sale | 17.8.2026 | 17,336 | -17,336 | $5.20 |
| Mohan Ajit | Open Market Sale | 17.8.2026 | 54,608 | -54,608 | $5.20 |
| Morrow Rebecca | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.8.2026 | 65,081 | +65,081 | — |
| Jenkins Elizabeth | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.8.2026 | 46,905 | +46,905 | — |
| Lanzone James | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.8.2026 | 46,905 | +46,905 | — |
| Spence Patrick | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.8.2026 | 46,905 | +46,905 | — |
| MILLER SCOTT D | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.8.2026 | 46,905 | +46,905 | — |
| Lynton Michael | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.8.2026 | 46,905 | +46,905 | — |
| Wood Luke | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.8.2026 | 46,905 | +46,905 | — |
| Thorpe Poppy | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.8.2026 | 46,905 | +46,905 | — |
| Coles Joanna | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.8.2026 | 46,905 | +46,905 | — |
| Vargas Fidel | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.8.2026 | 46,905 | +46,905 | — |
| Coffey Kelly | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.8.2026 | 46,905 | +46,905 | — |
| MILLER SCOTT D | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.8.2026 | 219,757 | +46,905 | — |
| Lynton Michael | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.8.2026 | 197,062 | +46,905 | — |
| MCRAE MATTHEW BLAKE | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.8.2026 | 67,558 | +46,905 | — |
| Coles Joanna | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.8.2026 | 132,854 | +46,905 | — |
| Morrow Rebecca | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.8.2026 | 615,441 | +65,081 | — |
| Spence Patrick | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.8.2026 | 118,671 | +46,905 | — |
| Thorpe Poppy | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.8.2026 | 142,217 | +46,905 | — |
| Coffey Kelly | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.8.2026 | 137,718 | +46,905 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
104,063,717 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 90,052,086 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
42.1% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 35.9% 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