Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Technology · ·
$10.78
▲ $0.22 (+2.1%)
Market data updated: 09/18 04:55 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/17/2026
News analyzed: 09/18/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
$10.50 - $10.90
52-Week Range
$7.68 - $20.22
Beta
—
Next Earnings
03.12.2026
AI is a stock from the Technology sector — Software, hardware, chip, and computing-services companies — revenue tied to the pace of innovation and upgrade cycles.
-37.4% (1Y)
Strengths: 9/29 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
🟢 Bullish
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Liquidity risk
Current ratio: 6.64
Risk
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: -$21.32 vs. price $10.78 (-297.7%)
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
47
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
today · $10.56
Evidence: Narrative Gap moved from 50 to 24 day-over-day
What happened after
Still awaiting outcome
2d ago · $11.17
Evidence: FOMO score jumped from 31 to 57 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
26
Quality
42
Value
38
Momentum
69
Risk
40
Sentiment
80
Fundamental
32
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 **C3.ai** has centered on its fiscal first-quarter results, highlighting a **73% quarter-over-quarter bookings growth** and a return to **positive free cash flow**, driven by federal sector expansion (up 138% year-over-year) and new high-profile deals with companies like **Ford** and U.S. government agencies. While revenue fell **25% year-over-year** to $52.4 million, subscription revenue remained strong at 94%, and restructuring efforts improved profitability. Analysts noted cautious optimism about its turnaround strategy, though guidance for the next quarter fell short of expectations. Investor focus remains on execution amid mixed market comparisons with peers like Snowflake.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about C3.ai, Inc.. News trend score: 80. Reason: 8 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
17
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
29
Psychology
57
Fundamentals
32
Technical
69
Valuation
38
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price, sentiment, and valuation keep confirming each other upward while the actual fundamentals deteriorate.
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.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price (3M)
+5%
Market Narrative
56
Fundamental Reality
29
Narrative Gap
+27
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s dominant **herding** behavior suggests traders are aligning with peers, as this stock underperformed its sector (-3.6% vs -2.5%). Meanwhile, **confirmation bias** persists due to a massive narrative-reality gap (+36), despite deteriorating fundamentals. **Euphoria** lingers from momentum and overvaluation, while **FOMO** and **overconfidence** are secondary, driven by sentiment and momentum over fundamentals. The key question: will traders continue herding downward or pivot if fundamentals worsen further?
Updated: 09/09/2026, 12:42 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Federal sector bookings rose 138% year on year"
"early signs of recovery under founder Thomas Siebel’s renewed leadership"
"return to positive free cash flow"
"sales fell by 25.5% year on year to $52.38 million"
🧠 Market Brain events driving this
📈 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
Walter Bagehot — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for this stock reflects deep methodological differences in risk tolerance, market timing, and valuation thresholds. Walter Bagehot’s near-perfect score highlights his focus on liquidity and resilience during crises, suggesting the model sees strong defensive qualities—something no other framework prioritizes. Meanwhile, the majority of methodologies, from Benjamin Graham’s cautious ‘mixed’ to Morgan Housel’s outright rejection, flag either valuation concerns, cyclical overreach, or lack of growth/quality signals. Investors like Jesse Livermore and Jack Schwager’s neutral stance stem from ambiguous trends, while Fisher, Lynch, and Veblen’s low scores emphasize their strict criteria for sustainable growth or stability. The contrast underscores how some approaches prioritize defensive fundamentals (Bagehot) while others demand clear, high-conviction edges (Fisher, Housel) or statistical edge (Efficient Market).
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 100
Strong liquidity — would likely survive a real credit squeeze
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)
🟢 68
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 62
Mixed — doesn't clearly pass Graham's tests
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 35%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 47
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
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
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 43
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 40
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 39
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 36
Cycle looks stretched toward overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 28
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🔴 17
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 12
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 8
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 7
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
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?
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 · 3 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.
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
30.9%
Operating Margin
-199.2%
Net Margin
-187.9%
EBITDA Margin
-193.8%
ROE
-71.9%
ROA
-57.6%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$3.35
Cash
$66.20M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
6.64
Debt/Equity
—
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$10.78
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$21.32
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-297.7%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
2.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2.0% | $-195.98M | $-179.80M |
| 2 | 2.1% | $-200.15M | $-168.46M |
| 3 | 2.3% | $-204.66M | $-158.03M |
| 4 | 2.4% | $-209.52M | $-148.43M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-214.75M | $-139.58M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-192.14M
Terminal Value
$-3.39B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-2.20B
Enterprise Value
$-3.00B
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$-3.00B
*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
$4.65
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$4.65
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 8 positive, 9 neutral, 3 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Simply Wall St. · 15.9.2026
StockStory · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Zacks · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
24/7 Wall St. · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Zacks · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Motley Fool · 14.9.2026
Benzinga · 13.9.2026
Yahoo · 13.9.2026
Insider Monkey · 13.9.2026
Yahoo · 13.9.2026
Motley Fool · 13.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
C3.ai, Inc. (AI) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 47/100, 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.
AI currently scores 47/100 (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, AI's estimated fair value is -$21.32, which is 297.7% below the current price of $10.78. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
AI'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: Current ratio: 6.64; Price is above the 50-day average; Price is above the 200-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: -$21.32 vs. price $10.78 (-297.7%); Operating margin: -199.2% (negative); Net margin: -187.9% (negative).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for AI.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SIEBEL THOMAS M | Gift | 3.9.2026 | 15,846 | +15,846 | — |
| SIEBEL THOMAS M | Gift | 3.9.2026 | 15,846 | -15,846 | — |
| SIEBEL THOMAS M | Open Market Sale | 2.9.2026 | 16,890 | -16,890 | $10.30 |
| SIEBEL THOMAS M | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 32,736 | -32,736 | — |
| SIEBEL THOMAS M | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 32,736 | +32,736 | — |
| Dwyer John Charles | Grant/Award from Employer | 25.8.2026 | 132,077 | +132,077 | — |
| Dwyer John Charles | Grant/Award from Employer | 25.8.2026 | 132,077 | +132,077 | — |
| SIEBEL THOMAS M | Open Market Sale | 11.8.2026 | 453,314 | -453,314 | $10.51 |
| SIEBEL THOMAS M | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 11.8.2026 | 453,314 | +453,314 | $3.90 |
| SIEBEL THOMAS M | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 11.8.2026 | 453,314 | -453,314 | — |
| Lath Hitesh | Open Market Sale | 4.8.2026 | 20,000 | -20,000 | $10.00 |
| SIEBEL THOMAS M | Gift | 4.8.2026 | 143,834 | +143,834 | — |
| SIEBEL THOMAS M | Gift | 4.8.2026 | 143,834 | -143,834 | — |
| SIEBEL THOMAS M | Gift | 4.8.2026 | 722,362 | -143,834 | — |
| SIEBEL THOMAS M | Gift | 4.8.2026 | 7,067,187 | +143,834 | — |
| Lath Hitesh | Open Market Sale | 4.8.2026 | 363,106 | -20,000 | $10.00 |
| SIEBEL THOMAS M | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 139,500 | -139,500 | $9.61 |
| SIEBEL THOMAS M | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 866,196 | -139,500 | $9.61 |
| SIEBEL THOMAS M | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 2.8.2026 | 283,334 | -283,334 | — |
| SIEBEL THOMAS M | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 2.8.2026 | 283,334 | +283,334 | — |
| SIEBEL THOMAS M | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 2.8.2026 | 1,005,696 | +283,334 | — |
| SIEBEL THOMAS M | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 2.8.2026 | 0 | -283,334 | — |
| Hyten John E. | Disposition to the Company | 15.7.2026 | 2,500 | -2,500 | $9.14 |
| SIEBEL THOMAS M | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 15.7.2026 | 64,975 | -64,975 | — |
| SIEBEL THOMAS M | Open Market Sale | 15.7.2026 | 133,490 | -133,490 | $9.32 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
46,699,653 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 46,307,686 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
55.4% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 58.9% 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