Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$1.39
▲ $0.01 (+0.7%)
Market data updated: 09/18 10:11 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/17/2026
News analyzed: 09/18/2026
Market Cap
$7.33M
Day Range
$1.38 - $1.41
52-Week Range
$1.31 - $8.34
Beta
—
Next Earnings
10.11.2026
ACXP 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.
-66.9% (1Y)
Strengths: 3/19 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
🔴 Bearish
Technical Trend
🔴 Bearish
Insiders
🟢 Bullish
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: 69.5%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
Daily volatility (ATR)
ATR: 5.1% of price
Risk
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
43
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
66
Quality
No data available
Value
55
Momentum
19
Risk
34
Sentiment
56
Fundamental
42
Institutional
100
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 Acurx Pharmaceuticals has centered on its **ibezapolstat**, a DNA polymerase IIIC inhibitor antibiotic in development for treating and preventing recurrent *Clostridioides difficile* infections. Key themes include **FDA engagement**, with conditional acceptance of its brand name, regulatory guidance for a potential **single-phase Phase 3 trial**, and discussions on the New Drug Application (NDA) scope. The company also secured **patent grants in Japan and Mexico**, announced a **scientific partnership with Leiden University Medical Center**, and highlighted **microbiome preservation data** from clinical studies. Financial updates and earnings call summaries were also featured.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Acurx Pharmaceuticals, Inc.. News trend score: 56. Reason: 2 of the last 13 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
8
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
52
Fundamentals
42
Technical
19
Valuation
55
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
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, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
Price (3M)
-10%
Market Narrative
42
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
-8
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant **Loss Aversion** state (64) reflects a market where investors are hesitant to realize losses after a 15.5% drop over three months, despite muted volume. The near-neutral RSI (47) and modest volatility (0.79x ATR) suggest cautious holding rather than aggressive selling or buying. Low FOMO (2) and herding (0) imply no urgency or peer-driven behavior, while the narrative gap (-5) hints at a slight disconnect between market sentiment and fundamentals. The key question is whether the subdued volume signals lingering hesitation or an impending shift in risk tolerance.
Updated: 09/06/2026, 12:06 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"FDA Signals Potential [1] / FDA Provides Further Regulatory Guidance [7] / Intent For Further Discussion With FDA [8] / Single-Phase 3-Trial Registration Plan [7]"
"FDA Conditional Acceptance and USPTO Trademark Allowance [2] / Japan and Mexico Patent Offices Both Grant [5]"
"Scientific Partnership with Leiden University [6] / Results from Leiden University Partnership [11] / DNA pol IIIC Inhibitors [11]"
"Potential for a Single-Phase 3-Trial [7] / Microbiome Preservation Data in Multiply-recurrent C. difficile [9] / Reduction of Recurrence of C. difficile Infection [7]"
📈 4D 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
Charles Mackay — 99/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in methodology verdicts for ACXP reflects deep contrasts in how these investors approach uncertainty and data gaps. Benjamin Graham and Peter Lynch’s near-universal ‘not enough data’ verdicts stem from their reliance on rigorous fundamental metrics—valuation, growth, and balance-sheet strength—that simply aren’t available here, leaving their models unable to form a concrete opinion. In contrast, cycle-focused thinkers like Howard Marks (Market Cycle) and Samuel Armstrong Nelson see potential in the stock’s position, scoring it favorably because it appears early-to-mid cycle rather than overextended, suggesting a more opportunistic, macro-driven perspective. Meanwhile, risk-averse voices like Gerald M. Loeb and Morgan Housel flag the stock as volatile or high-risk, with Housel’s zero score implying it’s the kind of instability that would test even the most patient investors’ discipline. The middle-ground methodologies—like Jack Schwager’s neutral stance or Thorstein Veblen’s mixed signals—highlight the ambiguity, where neither bullish nor bearish edges are clear-cut.
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟢 100
Not enough balance-sheet/valuation data for a real Graham read
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 20%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 100
Not enough growth data for a real Lynch read
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 25%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟢 100
Not enough valuation data for a real Enterprising-Graham read
Key question
Is the stock statistically cheap enough to justify the extra risk?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 25%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 99
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 88
Cycle position looks favorable — closer to oversold than overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 81
Looks early-to-mid cycle, not overextended
Key question
Where are we in the cycle right now — near a hot extreme, or a cold one?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 66
Risk appears reasonably priced — no obvious cycle-timing red flag
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 56
No clear edge either way
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)
🟡 53
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 45%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 50
Not enough fundamentals data for a real Fisher read
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 50
Not enough balance-sheet data for a real Bagehot read
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 26
Weak case — Malkiel/Bogle would say a low-cost index is the simpler bet
Key question
Do I actually have an edge here, or do I just think I do?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 21
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 16
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🔴 15
Not enough dividend/growth data for a real Smith read
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 25%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 0
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?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 30%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 275 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (0 bullish · 8 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.
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
—
Operating Margin
—
Net Margin
—
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
-151.2%
ROA
-103.6%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$5.32
Cash
$7.56M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
—
Debt/Equity
—
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
$3.52
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$3.52
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 2 positive, 10 neutral, 1 negative out of the last 13 articles.
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Benzinga · 8.9.2026
GuruFocus.com · 21.8.2026
PR Newswire · 17.8.2026
Moby · 14.8.2026
PR Newswire · 14.8.2026
PR Newswire · 12.8.2026
PR Newswire · 10.8.2026
PR Newswire · 3.8.2026
Benzinga · 3.8.2026
PR Newswire · 14.7.2026
PR Newswire · 8.7.2026
PR Newswire · 16.6.2026
Acurx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (ACXP) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 43/100, rated "Weak" (a partial score — based on only 6 of 7 categories, some data is currently unavailable). The score is a weighted average across up to 7 categories (technical, fundamental, growth, fair value, news, quality, risk), based on real data only.
ACXP currently scores 43/100 (Weak) across the categories we measure (a partial score — based on only 6 of 7 categories, some data is currently unavailable). StockIQ doesn't give buy/sell recommendations — use this as one data point in your own research, not as investment advice.
ACXP's technical score is 19/100, which currently reads as bearish — 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: 69.5%; Net income growth: 43.5%; NAV per share: $3.52.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: ATR: 5.1% of price; Calmar: -0.66 (3y annualized return -65.7% / max drawdown 98.8%); Return on equity (ROE): -151.2% (negative).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for ACXP.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 6 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LUCI DAVID P | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.4.2026 | 37,100 | +37,100 | — |
| HARRISON THOMAS L | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.4.2026 | 2,150 | +2,150 | — |
| Sailer Carl | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.4.2026 | 2,150 | +2,150 | — |
| DEAN JACK H | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.4.2026 | 2,150 | +2,150 | — |
| Donohue James J. | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.4.2026 | 2,150 | +2,150 | — |
| Scodari Joseph C | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.4.2026 | 2,150 | +2,150 | — |
| Shawah Robert G. | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.4.2026 | 25,900 | +25,900 | — |
| DELUCCIA ROBERT J | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.4.2026 | 37,100 | +37,100 | — |
| DELUCCIA ROBERT J | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.4.2026 | 37,100 | +37,100 | — |
| HARRISON THOMAS L | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.4.2026 | 2,150 | +2,150 | — |
| LUCI DAVID P | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.4.2026 | 37,100 | +37,100 | — |
| Scodari Joseph C | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.4.2026 | 2,150 | +2,150 | — |
| DEAN JACK H | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.4.2026 | 2,150 | +2,150 | — |
| Shawah Robert G. | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.4.2026 | 25,900 | +25,900 | — |
| Donohue James J. | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.4.2026 | 2,150 | +2,150 | — |
| Sailer Carl | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.4.2026 | 2,150 | +2,150 | — |
| Shawah Robert G. | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.2.2025 | 145,500 | +145,500 | — |
| DELUCCIA ROBERT J | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.2.2025 | 250,000 | +250,000 | — |
| LUCI DAVID P | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.2.2025 | 250,000 | +250,000 | — |
| Donohue James J. | Open Market Purchase | 6.1.2025 | 9,852 | +9,852 | — |
| Donohue James J. | Open Market Purchase | 6.1.2025 | 9,852 | +9,852 | $1.02 |
| LUCI DAVID P | Open Market Purchase | 6.1.2025 | 49,261 | +49,261 | $1.02 |
| LUCI DAVID P | Open Market Purchase | 6.1.2025 | 49,261 | +49,261 | — |
| Scodari Joseph C | Open Market Purchase | 6.1.2025 | 24,631 | +24,631 | $1.02 |
| Scodari Joseph C | Open Market Purchase | 6.1.2025 | 24,631 | +24,631 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
120,691 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 127,922 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
40.8% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 41.6% 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