Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Technology · ·
$192.53
▲ $2.25 (+1.2%)
Market data updated: 09/17 09:46 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/17/2026
News analyzed: 09/17/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
$185.72 - $195.54
52-Week Range
$56.01 - $198.60
Beta
—
Next Earnings
26.10.2026
TEAM is a stock from the Technology sector — Software, hardware, chip, and computing-services companies — revenue tied to the pace of innovation and upgrade cycles.
+11.8% (1Y)
Strengths: 11/32 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): 26.0%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $125.23 vs. price $192.53 (-35.0%)
Fair Value
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (68/100), 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
54
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
2d ago · $192.77
Evidence: FOMO score jumped from 26 to 53 day-over-day
What happened after
Still awaiting outcome
7d ago · $181.28
Evidence: Euphoria score crossed 55 (now 55)
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
68
Quality
42
Value
38
Momentum
65
Risk
26
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 **Atlassian Corporation** highlights its strong stock performance, with a **92% surge in August** driven by robust software-as-a-service (SaaS) demand and reassurance that the "SaaS-pocalypse" fears were unfounded. Analysts and options traders have taken notice, suggesting further upside potential. While broader market trends—like economic uncertainty and inflation concerns—impact tech stocks, Atlassian’s momentum remains a focal point amid the current earnings-driven rally in software firms.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Atlassian Corporation. 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
53
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
36
Psychology
62
Fundamentals
31
Technical
65
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.
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price (3M)
+133%
Market Narrative
76
Fundamental Reality
36
Narrative Gap
+40
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s dominant euphoria for TEAM reflects extreme valuation disconnects (+85% above 200-day average, +41% vs. DCF) paired with perfect sentiment and momentum. Overconfidence is secondary, as price gains slightly exceed EPS growth, but FOMO remains muted by modest volume and neutral RSI. The key question: Is this euphoria anchored in fundamentals, or will a narrative gap (78 vs. 36) eventually force a revaluation? The low herding score suggests peers aren’t driving the move, leaving room for a correction if sentiment cools.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 09:20 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"workplace collaboration software specialist put fears of a SaaS-pocalypse to bed"
"Investors need to pay close attention to TEAM stock based on the movements in the options market lately"
"SNOW, DELL, TEAM Stocks Surge To 52-Week Highs Today"
"investors are increasingly favoring companies that can prove real AI demand"
🧠 Market Brain events driving this
📈 10D 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
Peter Lynch — 76/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor) — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for TEAM reflects deep methodological disagreements about risk, growth, and valuation. Peter Lynch’s high score suggests he sees untapped growth potential, while the majority of methodologies—especially those rooted in defensive or risk-averse principles like Graham, Loeb, and Marks—flag severe concerns, from overvaluation to liquidity risks. Even the efficient-market proponents and Livermore’s trend-following approach hesitate, indicating weak fundamental or technical signals. Meanwhile, Fisher’s low score implies a lack of the quality and competitive advantage he prized, while Veblen’s caution hints at speculative rather than sustainable growth. The contrast underscores whether TEAM is a speculative bet (Lynch) or a high-risk, low-reward play (Graham/Loeb), with most middle-ground approaches simply lacking conviction either way.
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 76
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 62
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)
🟡 57
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 47
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 46
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)
🟡 45
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 33
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 27
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🔴 23
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 19
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🔴 16
Cycle looks stretched toward overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 16
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)
🔴 13
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 8
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 6
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 0
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
Based on the last 279 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟢 Most indicators support an uptrend (7 bullish · 4 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.
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
84.8%
Operating Margin
0.2%
Net Margin
-0.8%
EBITDA Margin
2.3%
ROE
-5.1%
ROA
-0.9%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$0.21
Cash
$1.24B
Total Debt
$989.56M
Current Ratio
0.78
Debt/Equity
0.93
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$192.53
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$125.23
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-35.0%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
23.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 23.0% | $1.62B | $1.49B |
| 2 | 17.9% | $1.91B | $1.61B |
| 3 | 12.7% | $2.16B | $1.66B |
| 4 | 7.6% | $2.32B | $1.64B |
| 5 | 2.5% | $2.38B | $1.55B |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$1.32B
Terminal Value
$37.51B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$24.38B
Enterprise Value
$32.33B
Net Debt
$-249.95M
Equity Value
$32.58B
*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
$4.07
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$6.44
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 12 positive, 6 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Motley Fool · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Business Wire · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
TechCrunch · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 10.9.2026
Atlassian Corporation (TEAM) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 54/100, 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.
TEAM currently scores 54/100 (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, TEAM's estimated fair value is $125.23, which is 35.0% below the current price of $192.53. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
TEAM's technical score is 65/100, 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): 26.0%; Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 78.6%; Net income growth: 79.0%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $125.23 vs. price $192.53 (-35.0%); Net margin: -0.8% (negative); Operating margin is eroding over time.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for TEAM.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 25 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LIU GENE | Open Market Sale | 28.8.2026 | 55,868 | -939 | $190.00 |
| LIU GENE | Open Market Sale | 28.8.2026 | 939 | -939 | $190.00 |
| LIU GENE | Open Market Sale | 19.8.2026 | 1,125 | -1,125 | $175.00 |
| DUFFY BRIAN | Open Market Sale | 19.8.2026 | 418 | -418 | $174.02 |
| DUFFY BRIAN | Open Market Sale | 19.8.2026 | 18 | -18 | $165.08 |
| DUFFY BRIAN | Open Market Sale | 19.8.2026 | 242 | -242 | $175.10 |
| DUFFY BRIAN | Open Market Sale | 19.8.2026 | 117 | -117 | $171.31 |
| DUFFY BRIAN | Open Market Sale | 19.8.2026 | 22 | -22 | $170.05 |
| DUFFY BRIAN | Open Market Sale | 19.8.2026 | 116 | -116 | $167.15 |
| DUFFY BRIAN | Open Market Sale | 19.8.2026 | 40 | -40 | $165.96 |
| DUFFY BRIAN | Open Market Sale | 19.8.2026 | 54 | -54 | $175.76 |
| DUFFY BRIAN | Open Market Sale | 19.8.2026 | 438 | -438 | $173.14 |
| DUFFY BRIAN | Open Market Sale | 19.8.2026 | 5 | -5 | $162.05 |
| DUFFY BRIAN | Open Market Sale | 19.8.2026 | 281 | -281 | $172.01 |
| DUFFY BRIAN | Open Market Sale | 19.8.2026 | 31 | -31 | $169.09 |
| DUFFY BRIAN | Open Market Sale | 19.8.2026 | 69 | -69 | $167.99 |
| CHUONG JAMES | Open Market Sale | 19.8.2026 | 88 | -88 | $165.08 |
| CHUONG JAMES | Open Market Sale | 19.8.2026 | 1,184 | -1,184 | $175.10 |
| CHUONG JAMES | Open Market Sale | 19.8.2026 | 1,377 | -1,377 | $172.01 |
| CHUONG JAMES | Open Market Sale | 19.8.2026 | 150 | -150 | $169.09 |
| CHUONG JAMES | Open Market Sale | 19.8.2026 | 194 | -194 | $165.96 |
| CHUONG JAMES | Open Market Sale | 19.8.2026 | 23 | -23 | $162.05 |
| CHUONG JAMES | Open Market Sale | 19.8.2026 | 339 | -339 | $167.99 |
| CHUONG JAMES | Open Market Sale | 19.8.2026 | 568 | -568 | $167.15 |
| CHUONG JAMES | Open Market Sale | 19.8.2026 | 2,044 | -2,044 | $174.02 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
9,959,335 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 15,775,781 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
54.1% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 49.5% 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