Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Energy · ·
$163.54
▲ $0.27 (+0.2%)
Market data updated: 09/20 09:08 AM
Fundamentals updated: 08/23/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$672.46B
Day Range
$161.31 - $163.54
52-Week Range
$110.39 - $176.41
Beta
—
Next Earnings
29.10.2026
Support
$137.14
Resistance
$169.64
XOM is a stock from the Energy sector — Oil, gas, and renewable energy — highly volatile profitability, dependent on global commodity prices.
+43.5% (1Y)
Strengths: 9/30 factors positiveRisk: Medium
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
Leverage risk
Debt/equity: 0.17
Risk
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $64.83 vs. price $163.54 (-60.4%)
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
57
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
26
Quality
55
Value
38
Momentum
69
Risk
56
Sentiment
86
Fundamental
65
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING XOM...
Recent media coverage of ExxonMobil has centered on its financial stability amid fluctuating oil prices, with headlines highlighting a pause in a $5.06 billion deal in Kazakhstan. The company’s consistent dividend growth streak—nearly unbroken for 43 years—has been noted, though one near-break in 2026 drew attention. ExxonMobil also announced cash tender offers for its 2030 and 2031 senior notes, signaling debt management. Broader energy market trends, including rising oil prices near $100 due to geopolitical tensions (like Houthi strikes on Saudi oil sites), have indirectly boosted energy stocks, including ExxonMobil’s peers.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about ExxonMobil. News trend score: 86. Reason: 9 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 3 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
33
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
39
Psychology
45
Fundamentals
65
Technical
69
Valuation
38
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price, sentiment, and valuation keep confirming each other upward while the actual fundamentals deteriorate.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
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.
Price (3M)
+19%
Market Narrative
70
Fundamental Reality
39
Narrative Gap
+31
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
XOM’s psychology is dominated by **herding**, where traders align with peers (+1.0% peer gain vs. +0.7% today) despite weak momentum (-3.7% ROC) and muted volume. Overconfidence (45) and confirmation bias (43) persist due to extreme valuation (+148% DCF premium) and a narrative-reality gap (+33), suggesting investors prioritize perceived positives over fundamentals. The absence of panic or loss aversion—despite negative momentum—implies complacency. The key question: will herding sustain if peers diverge or fundamentals deteriorate?
Updated: 09/09/2026, 09:41 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Oil prices are once again on the brink of $100 (article 2)"
"Energy stocks rise premarket as oil prices climb on Middle East supply fears (article 11)"
"ExxonMobil Has Raised Its Dividend 43 Years Running (article 4)"
"ExxonMobil's Pioneer Natural Resources launches cash tender offers for 2030 and 2031 Senior Notes (article 5)"
📈 14D 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
Edgar Lawrence Smith — 67/100
🔴 Weakest match
Philip Fisher — 5/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The methodologies for XOM split sharply between bullish and bearish camps, reflecting starkly different priorities. Samuel Armstrong Nelson and Edgar Lawrence Smith both see strong potential, with Nelson’s cyclical analysis suggesting it’s near an oversold trough and Smith’s long-term framework labeling it a ‘buy and hold for a decade’ candidate—both emphasizing favorable long-term positioning. Conversely, Fisher’s strict quality/growth focus and Graham’s defensive criteria dismiss XOM outright, while Veblen and Schwager’s wizards flag it as speculative or lacking disciplined setups. The middle ground—where Marks, Bagehot, and Livermore land—warns of cyclical risks, liquidity concerns, or trend resistance, illustrating how even moderate-risk frameworks can clash over valuation and timing. The divide underscores whether the stock’s stability (a strength for Nelson or Smith) is overvalued (a weakness for Fisher or Graham) or simply not a core fit for their respective rules.
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 67
Looks like a real 'buy and hold for a decade' candidate
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 60
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 55
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)
🟡 54
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 53
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 50
Some signs of crowd excitement building
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)
🟡 45
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 44
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 40
Mixed — a good business, but expectations may already be high
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 40
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 31
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 26
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 21
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 20
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 11
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?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 5
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
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 · 2 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 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
30.0%
Operating Margin
11.4%
Net Margin
8.9%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
11.1%
ROA
6.4%
ROIC
—
EPS
$6.70
Cash
$10.68B
Total Debt
$43.54B
Current Ratio
1.15
Debt/Equity
0.17
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 17.8.2026 | $1.030 |
| 15.5.2026 | $1.030 |
| 14.5.2026 | $1.030 |
| 12.2.2026 | $1.030 |
| 11.2.2026 | $1.030 |
| 14.11.2025 | $1.030 |
| 13.11.2025 | $1.030 |
| 15.8.2025 | $0.990 |
| 14.8.2025 | $0.990 |
| 15.5.2025 | $0.990 |
| 14.5.2025 | $0.990 |
| 12.2.2025 | $0.990 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$163.54
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$64.83
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-60.4%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
-5.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | -5.0% | $22.43B | $20.58B |
| 2 | -3.1% | $21.73B | $18.29B |
| 3 | -1.2% | $21.46B | $16.57B |
| 4 | 0.6% | $21.59B | $15.30B |
| 5 | 2.5% | $22.13B | $14.38B |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$23.61B
Terminal Value
$349.02B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$226.84B
Enterprise Value
$311.96B
Net Debt
$32.86B
Equity Value
$279.10B
*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
$62.07
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$47.78
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 9 positive, 8 neutral, 3 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
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 · 18.9.2026
Benzinga · 18.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 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
Benzinga · 17.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 17.9.2026
ExxonMobil (XOM) 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.
XOM 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, XOM's estimated fair value is $64.83, which is 60.4% below the current price of $163.54. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
XOM's technical score is 69/100, 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: Debt/equity: 0.17; Price is above the 50-day average; Price is above the 200-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $64.83 vs. price $163.54 (-60.4%); Revenue growth (last year): -4.5%; Earnings per share (EPS) growth: -14.5%.
Yes — XOM has a real recorded dividend payment history on StockIQ. See the Dividends section on this page for the actual per-share amounts and dates.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 7 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Talley Darrin L | Open Market Sale | 16.3.2026 | 17,124 | -1,080 | $155.50 |
| Talley Darrin L | Open Market Sale | 2.3.2026 | 18,204 | -2,150 | $157.82 |
| Talley Darrin L | Open Market Sale | 9.2.2026 | 20,354 | -3,230 | $149.18 |
| Talley Darrin L | Open Market Sale | 2.2.2026 | 27,934 | -650 | $139.76 |
| Talley Darrin L | Open Market Sale | 2.2.2026 | 23,584 | -4,350 | $139.75 |
| HOOLEY JOSEPH L | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.1.2026 | 23,000 | +2,500 | — |
| UBBEN JEFFREY W | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.1.2026 | 20,500 | +2,500 | — |
| KELLNER LAWRENCE W | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.1.2026 | 15,500 | +2,500 | — |
| HARRIS JOHN D | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.1.2026 | 15,750 | +2,500 | — |
| KANDARIAN STEVEN A | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.1.2026 | 28,000 | +2,500 | — |
| Braly Angela F | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.1.2026 | 33,000 | +2,500 | — |
| Angelakis Michael J | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.1.2026 | 23,500 | +2,500 | — |
| Karsner Alexander | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.1.2026 | 37,500 | +2,500 | — |
| Garland Greg C. | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.1.2026 | 10,839 | +2,500 | — |
| Dreyfus Maria S. | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.1.2026 | 40,757 | +2,500 | — |
| Hietala Kaisa | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.1.2026 | 20,500 | +2,500 | — |
| Powell Dina H. | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.1.2026 | 13,000 | +2,500 | — |
| Chapman Neil A | Gift | 18.12.2025 | 1,032,666 | -335 | — |
| Chapman Neil A | Gift | 18.12.2025 | 1,032,331 | -335 | — |
| Chapman Neil A | Gift | 18.12.2025 | 1,031,996 | -335 | — |
| Chapman Neil A | Gift | 18.12.2025 | 3,787 | +335 | — |
| Chapman Neil A | Gift | 18.12.2025 | 1,031,661 | -335 | — |
| Talley Darrin L | Open Market Sale | 17.12.2025 | 28,584 | -3,000 | $117.19 |
| Talley Darrin L | Open Market Sale | 15.12.2025 | 31,584 | -3,000 | $118.75 |
| Angelakis Michael J | Gift | 12.12.2025 | 21,000 | -17,000 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
39,700,806 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 42,347,070 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
51.8% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 39.8% 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