Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
· · CBOE
$119.39
▲ $0.44 (+0.4%)
Market data updated: 09/17 10:14 AM
News analyzed: 09/17/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
$117.98 - $120.60
52-Week Range
$98.35 - $144.42
Beta
—
Next Earnings
—
+14.9% (1Y)
⚠️ Insufficient data for a reliable StockIQ Score
Only 3 of 7 categories available — Fundamental, Growth, Valuation, Quality unavailable.
Strengths: 0/13 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
🔴 Bearish
Technical Trend
🔴 Bearish
No notable strengths identified.
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest negative driver
Price vs. SMA 50
Price is below the 50-day average
Technical
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
NO RELIABLE ECHO FOUND
Only 1 historical analog(s) found after removing overlapping dates — too few for a statistically meaningful comparison.
Historical matches considered: 1
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
40
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
No data available
Quality
No data available
Value
No data available
Momentum
19
Risk
50
Sentiment
86
Fundamental
No data available
Institutional
No data available
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
Not enough comparably-scored stocks yet to show similar matches.
This stock hasn't been analyzed by StockIQAI's movement engine yet — coverage is still expanding. Check back soon.
Recent media coverage on the **ARK Autonomous Technology & Robotics ETF (ARKQ)** has focused on broader themes rather than specific company updates. Headlines highlight growing interest in **industrial robotics and AI-driven automation**, with ETFs like ARKQ positioned as early-stage growth plays amid government incentives for robotic adoption. There’s also discussion of **ARK Invest’s strategic shifts**, including recent sales of AI-related stocks like Tempus AI and AMD, alongside broader market trends—such as capital intensity, semiconductor surges, and macroeconomic concerns like debt and AI infrastructure spending. No direct ARKQ-specific news stands out beyond its inclusion in robotics ETF comparisons.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about ARK Autonomous Technology & Robotics ETF. News trend score: 86. Reason: 10 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 4 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
16
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
20
Fundamentals
—
Technical
19
Valuation
—
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
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)
-10%
Market Narrative
56
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
+6
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
ARKQ’s psychology is fragmented but dominated by **Euphoria** (19/19), where extreme positive sentiment (100/100) overrides weak momentum (-3.0% ROC) and marginal underperformance. The **narrative gap** (61 vs. 50) suggests investors remain overly optimistic despite technical signals that are neither strongly bullish nor bearish. The lack of dominant panic or FOMO signals implies a detached, almost detached-optimistic stance—buyers may be holding despite minor red flags. The key question: *Will sentiment sustain momentum, or will the 9.0% resistance test trigger a re-evaluation?*
Updated: 09/06/2026, 12:42 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"hundreds of billions in corporate borrowing are piling up to finance a gargantuan AI data center infrastructure buildout"
"Semiconductors’ newfound prominence... given the importance of chips, memory and equipment suppliers to the AI infrastructure build-out"
"Ark Invest sold $15.6 million of Tempus AI and $3.4 million of AMD on Tuesday, Sept. 1, 2026"
"Robotics ETFs (BOTZ, ROBO, ARKQ) offer early growth, but industrial robotics leads"
📈 6D Investor Psychology
Signal classification confidence: Medium (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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — 89/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jesse Livermore — 16/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The methodologies here split sharply between those who see ARKQ as a cautiously optimistic play and those that flag significant red flags. Samuel Armstrong Nelson and Charles Mackay’s high scores suggest the stock may be undervalued relative to its cycle or lacks crowd-driven hype, respectively, while Morgan Housel and Gerald Loeb’s moderate scores imply it’s holdable but not risk-free. Meanwhile, Benjamin Graham, Philip Fisher, and Peter Lynch’s neutral verdicts stem from insufficient fundamental or valuation data, leaving their models unable to confirm or deny its merits. On the other end, Jesse Livermore and Jack Schwager’s low scores reflect a clear divergence—Livermore’s trend-following rule rejects the stock outright, while Schwager’s disciplined wizards would avoid it entirely due to lack of a clear setup. The contrast underscores a fundamental tension: some frameworks see potential in its cyclical positioning or lack of mania, while others dismiss it as either overpriced, risky, or simply untradeable under strict rules.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 89
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 77
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 64
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 57
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 55
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 52
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 50
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: 0%
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%
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 50
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: 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%
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 50
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: 30%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 50
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: 0%
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 40
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 34
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
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)
🔴 14
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
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.
A pattern consistent with an early/mid accumulation phase — a trading range after a decline with declining volume.
Medium confidence
$109.46
Range Bottom
$132.00
Range Top
50
Trading Days in Range
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.
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 26.12.2025 | $0.306 |
| 29.12.2021 | $0.614 |
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 10 positive, 6 neutral, 4 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Benzinga · 15.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 15.9.2026
Benzinga · 15.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 15.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 14.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 14.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 12.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 11.9.2026
Benzinga · 11.9.2026
Benzinga · 11.9.2026
Benzinga · 10.9.2026
Benzinga · 10.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 9.9.2026
Benzinga · 9.9.2026
Benzinga · 9.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 5.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 4.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 3.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 3.9.2026
StockIQ doesn't currently have enough real data to compute a reliable score for ARK Autonomous Technology & Robotics ETF (ARKQ) — only 3 of 7 categories are available right now. Rather than show a misleading number, this page shows which data is missing instead.
StockIQ doesn't give buy/sell recommendations — and for ARKQ specifically, there currently isn't enough real data (only 3 of 7 categories available) to state even a factual score reliably. Check back once more data is available.
ARKQ'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: Price is below the 50-day average; Price is below the 200-day average; MACD histogram is negative — falling momentum.
Yes — ARKQ 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 0 sales out of the last 0 filings.
No recent insider transaction filings found for this stock.
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
363,844 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 311,011 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
42.7% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 38.3% 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