Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
· ·
$332.43
▼ $5.96 (-1.8%)
Market data updated: 09/19 05:33 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
$117.28B
Day Range
$330.72 - $339.27
52-Week Range
$118.30 - $384.56
Beta
—
Next Earnings
01.12.2026
Support
$253.59
Resistance
$384.56
+49.7% (1Y)
Strengths: 10/29 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): 29.2%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $84.70 vs. price $332.43 (-74.5%)
Fair Value
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
52
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
14d ago · $337.18
Evidence: FOMO score jumped from 14 to 42 day-over-day
What happened after
🐂🐻 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
54
Quality
58
Value
38
Momentum
59
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 Snowflake Inc. has centered on its rapid growth driven by AI adoption, with the company emphasizing how artificial intelligence is accelerating data migrations and expanding its Community Contribution (CoCo) model. Analysts highlight Snowflake’s expanding cloud analytics leadership, its competitive positioning against rivals like Oracle and Dell, and a bullish outlook on its valuation despite rising risks. The CEO’s comments on AI’s transformative impact and Snowflake’s strategic resilience in the AI era have also drawn attention.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Snowflake Inc.. News trend score: 100. Reason: 17 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 0 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
50
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
41
Psychology
60
Fundamentals
31
Technical
59
Valuation
38
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, 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)
+43%
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 euphoria—driven by extreme valuation (+296% vs. DCF) and strong momentum—suggests investors are prioritizing short-term gains over fundamentals. Overconfidence further amplifies this, as price momentum (+4.2%) far outpaces EPS growth (0%). The narrative gap (35 points) indicates a disconnect between optimistic expectations and underlying reality. Key question: Will momentum sustain, or will valuation corrections trigger a re-evaluation? FOMO persists despite moderate RSI (55), signaling continued speculative participation.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 09:11 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Snowflake CEO: AI is unleashing a 'flywheel effect' on our business"
"Snowflake's Growth Is Accelerating. So Is the Valuation Risk"
"Snowflake Expands in Cloud Analytics: Can It Challenge DELL & ORCL?"
"Snowflake stock explodes 17% as AI fears suddenly flip"
📈 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 — 68/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham — 5/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark contrast in verdicts for SNOW reflects deep methodological divides between value-focused and growth-oriented investors. Benjamin Graham’s low score of 5—based on strict defensive criteria—aligns with his preference for deep undervaluation and margin of safety, while Philip Fisher’s 68 suggests he might see enough qualitative strength to justify a ‘solid’ but not exceptional holding. Meanwhile, the mid-range scores (45–63) from investors like Morgan Housel or Edgar Lawrence Smith imply a cautious ‘holdable’ opportunity, though lacking the clarity or conviction of a true long-term winner. At the other extreme, Graham’s Enterprising Investor standard (22) and Howard Marks’ risk-averse stance (13) flag the stock as overvalued or speculative, mirroring Charles Mackay’s skepticism of crowd-driven momentum. The debate hinges on whether SNOW’s growth potential outweighs its valuation risks—Fisher and Smith lean toward a measured ‘yes,’ while Graham and Marks would steer clear entirely.
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟢 68
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 57
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 55
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 48
Mixed — growth exists but the price already reflects much of it
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 45
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 45
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 32
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🔴 27
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 26
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 22
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 22
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
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 11
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)
🔴 5
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
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 (6 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.
The stock is in a clear uptrend with no defined trading range in the period examined.
High 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
67.2%
Operating Margin
-30.6%
Net Margin
-28.4%
EBITDA Margin
-25.9%
ROE
-69.2%
ROA
-14.6%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$3.95
Cash
$2.83B
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
1.30
Debt/Equity
—
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$332.43
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$84.70
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-74.5%
🔴 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% | $1.40B | $1.28B |
| 2 | 19.4% | $1.67B | $1.41B |
| 3 | 13.8% | $1.90B | $1.47B |
| 4 | 8.1% | $2.06B | $1.46B |
| 5 | 2.5% | $2.11B | $1.37B |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$1.12B
Terminal Value
$33.23B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$21.60B
Enterprise Value
$28.59B
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$28.59B
*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
$5.70
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$1.43
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 17 positive, 3 neutral, 0 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 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
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Snowflake Inc. (SNOW) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 52/100, 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.
SNOW currently scores 52/100 (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, SNOW's estimated fair value is $84.70, which is 74.5% below the current price of $332.43. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
SNOW's technical score is 59/100, 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): 29.2%; Free cash flow growth: 22.6%; Operating margin is stable or improving over time.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $84.70 vs. price $332.43 (-74.5%); SMA 50 recently crossed below SMA 200; Operating margin: -30.6% (negative).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for SNOW.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 9 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dageville Benoit | Open Market Sale | 9.9.2026 | 50,000 | -50,000 | $335.72 |
| Dageville Benoit | Gift | 9.9.2026 | 16,668 | -16,668 | — |
| Kleinerman Christian | Open Market Sale | 9.9.2026 | 2,730 | -2,730 | $335.72 |
| Ho Emily | Tax Withholding in Shares | 8.9.2026 | 181 | -181 | $337.18 |
| Kleinerman Christian | Tax Withholding in Shares | 8.9.2026 | 1,858 | -1,858 | $337.18 |
| Raghunathan Vivek | Tax Withholding in Shares | 8.9.2026 | 543 | -543 | $337.18 |
| Ramaswamy Sridhar | Tax Withholding in Shares | 8.9.2026 | 1,328 | -1,328 | $337.18 |
| Kleinerman Christian | Tax Withholding in Shares | 8.9.2026 | 904 | -904 | $337.18 |
| Ramaswamy Sridhar | Tax Withholding in Shares | 8.9.2026 | 3,187 | -3,187 | $337.18 |
| Dageville Benoit | Tax Withholding in Shares | 8.9.2026 | 232 | -232 | $337.18 |
| ROBINS BRIAN G | Tax Withholding in Shares | 8.9.2026 | 366 | -366 | $337.18 |
| ROBINS BRIAN G | Tax Withholding in Shares | 8.9.2026 | 4,915 | -4,915 | $337.18 |
| Beaulier Jonathan Mead | Tax Withholding in Shares | 8.9.2026 | 174 | -174 | $337.18 |
| Raghunathan Vivek | Tax Withholding in Shares | 8.9.2026 | 1,301 | -1,301 | $337.18 |
| Beaulier Jonathan Mead | Tax Withholding in Shares | 8.9.2026 | 653 | -653 | $337.18 |
| Dageville Benoit | Tax Withholding in Shares | 8.9.2026 | 555 | -555 | $337.18 |
| Speiser Michael L | Open Market Sale | 4.9.2026 | 840 | -840 | $353.87 |
| Speiser Michael L | Open Market Sale | 4.9.2026 | 840 | -840 | $353.87 |
| Speiser Michael L | Open Market Sale | 4.9.2026 | 12,973 | -12,973 | $353.87 |
| Speiser Michael L | Open Market Sale | 4.9.2026 | 403 | -403 | $353.87 |
| GARRETT MARK | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 4.9.2026 | 50,000 | +50,000 | $3.74 |
| GARRETT MARK | Open Market Sale | 4.9.2026 | 50,000 | -50,000 | $350.00 |
| GARRETT MARK | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 4.9.2026 | 50,000 | -50,000 | — |
| Speiser Michael L | Open Market Sale | 4.9.2026 | 34,005 | -34,005 | $353.87 |
| Speiser Michael L | Open Market Sale | 4.9.2026 | 840 | -840 | $353.87 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
18,063,703 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 18,948,362 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
53.6% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 57.3% 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