Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
· ·
$6.31
▼ $0.18 (-2.8%)
Market data updated: 09/19 07:40 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/18/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
$4.06B
Day Range
$6.29 - $6.52
52-Week Range
$3.60 - $8.57
Beta
—
Next Earnings
26.10.2026
Support
$5.40
Resistance
$7.25
+10.2% (1Y)
Strengths: 10/27 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: 11.86
Risk
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: -$4.40 vs. price $6.31 (-169.7%)
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
54
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
48
Quality
42
Value
38
Momentum
82
Risk
40
Sentiment
86
Fundamental
27
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 Aurora Innovation, Inc. has focused on its leadership in autonomous trucking, highlighting its competitive edge over rivals like PlusAI. The company’s upcoming **Analyst & Investor Day** (September 23, 2026) will emphasize scaling its fleet and industry momentum. Criticism of its high valuation—**$12.5 billion on just $2M in Q2 revenue**—has been noted, with analysts stressing its value tied to truck deployment rather than traditional metrics. A key partnership with **McLane Company** for driverless commercial hauls was also spotlighted, reinforcing its real-world progress.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Aurora Innovation, Inc.. 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
41
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
48
Psychology
45
Fundamentals
27
Technical
82
Valuation
38
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.
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)
+3%
Market Narrative
76
Fundamental Reality
48
Narrative Gap
+28
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior suggests a **FOMO-driven narrative**—momentum and sentiment align, but volume remains subdued, indicating cautious participation rather than frenzy. Euphoria and overconfidence are secondary, reflecting detached price action from fundamentals. The key open question is whether this momentum will sustain or if traders will reassess when fundamentals fail to justify gains. The narrative-reality gap (16) hints at potential misalignment if price momentum stalls.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 03:16 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Aurora Innovation's lead rests on ~440,000 driverless miles and factory integration with Volvo and International"
"trades at 2,498 times trailing twelve-month sales against 3.2 for the S&P 500"
"planned 2027 commercial autonomous-truck launch"
"Aurora Innovation (AUR) Partners with McLane Company to Launch Driverless Commercial Hauls"
📈 9D 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
Philip Fisher — 15/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock’s starkly divided verdicts reflect a clash between risk tolerance and fundamental rigor. Walter Bagehot’s near-perfect score highlights its liquidity resilience, suggesting it could weather financial stress—an outlier among methodologies that prioritize stability. Meanwhile, the majority of investors, from Benjamin Graham to Philip Fisher, flagged flaws: Graham’s defensive framework dismissed it for volatility, Fisher’s growth criteria weren’t met, and Lynch or Marks saw either overvaluation or late-cycle risks. The middle ground—like Malkiel/Bogle’s efficient-market skepticism or Marks’ mixed verdict—implies the stock’s case is weak unless you’re betting on liquidity alone, while the lowest scorers (Veblen, Housel) warn of speculative or emotionally driven behavior. The debate hinges on whether you trust Bagehot’s liquidity lens or the broader consensus that the stock lacks the durability or growth to justify entry.
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟢 66
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 47
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
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 43
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 35%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 42
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
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 34
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
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
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🔴 25
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 23
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🔴 21
Cycle looks stretched toward overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
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?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 40%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 18
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 15
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 (8 bullish · 1 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.
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
-466.7%
Operating Margin
-30033.3%
Net Margin
-27200.0%
EBITDA Margin
-29033.3%
ROE
-38.1%
ROA
-34.8%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$0.44
Cash
$221.00M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
11.86
Debt/Equity
—
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$6.31
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$4.40
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-169.7%
🔴 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% | $-581.40M | $-533.39M |
| 2 | -3.1% | $-563.23M | $-474.06M |
| 3 | -1.2% | $-556.19M | $-429.48M |
| 4 | 0.6% | $-559.67M | $-396.48M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-573.66M | $-372.84M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-612.00M
Terminal Value
$-9.05B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-5.88B
Enterprise Value
$-8.09B
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$-8.09B
*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
$1.16
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$0.83
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 9 positive, 8 neutral, 3 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Benzinga · 17.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Benzinga · 11.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 10.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 8.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 8.9.2026
Insider Monkey · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
Trefis · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
Insider Monkey · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
Benzinga · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 2.9.2026
Business Wire · 2.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 31.8.2026
Yahoo · 25.8.2026
Quartz · 25.8.2026
Yahoo · 24.8.2026
Aurora Innovation, Inc. (AUR) 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.
AUR 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, AUR's estimated fair value is -$4.40, which is 169.7% below the current price of $6.31. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
AUR's technical score is 82/100, 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: 11.86; Price is above the 50-day average; Price is above the 200-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: -$4.40 vs. price $6.31 (-169.7%); Operating margin: -30033.3% (negative); Net margin: -27200.0% (negative).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for AUR.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WEBB SHELLEY | Tax Withholding in Shares | 20.8.2026 | 41,699 | -41,699 | $6.20 |
| Fisher Ossa | Tax Withholding in Shares | 20.8.2026 | 70,281 | -70,281 | $6.20 |
| Maday David | Tax Withholding in Shares | 20.8.2026 | 54,412 | -54,412 | $6.20 |
| Volpi Michelangelo | Conversion of Derivative Security | 17.8.2026 | 42,639 | -42,639 | — |
| Volpi Michelangelo | Conversion of Derivative Security | 17.8.2026 | 2,800,043 | -2,800,043 | — |
| Volpi Michelangelo | Conversion of Derivative Security | 17.8.2026 | 2,800,043 | +2,800,043 | — |
| Volpi Michelangelo | Conversion of Derivative Security | 17.8.2026 | 42,639 | +42,639 | — |
| Volpi Michelangelo | Open Market Sale | 17.8.2026 | 42,639 | -42,639 | $7.00 |
| Uber Technologies, Inc | Open Market Sale | 17.8.2026 | 72,000,000 | -72,000,000 | $6.55 |
| Volpi Michelangelo | Open Market Sale | 17.8.2026 | 2,800,043 | -2,800,043 | $7.00 |
| Volpi Michelangelo | Conversion of Derivative Security | 13.8.2026 | 34,340,643 | -22,163 | — |
| Volpi Michelangelo | Open Market Sale | 13.8.2026 | 0 | -22,163 | $7.01 |
| Volpi Michelangelo | Conversion of Derivative Security | 13.8.2026 | 22,163 | +22,163 | — |
| Volpi Michelangelo | Conversion of Derivative Security | 13.8.2026 | 522,934 | -338 | — |
| Volpi Michelangelo | Conversion of Derivative Security | 13.8.2026 | 338 | +338 | — |
| Volpi Michelangelo | Conversion of Derivative Security | 13.8.2026 | 22,163 | -22,163 | — |
| Volpi Michelangelo | Open Market Sale | 13.8.2026 | 338 | -338 | $7.01 |
| Volpi Michelangelo | Open Market Sale | 13.8.2026 | 22,163 | -22,163 | $7.01 |
| Volpi Michelangelo | Conversion of Derivative Security | 13.8.2026 | 338 | -338 | — |
| Volpi Michelangelo | Conversion of Derivative Security | 13.8.2026 | 22,163 | +22,163 | — |
| Volpi Michelangelo | Conversion of Derivative Security | 13.8.2026 | 338 | +338 | — |
| Volpi Michelangelo | Conversion of Derivative Security | 12.8.2026 | 224 | +224 | — |
| Volpi Michelangelo | Conversion of Derivative Security | 12.8.2026 | 14,692 | +14,692 | — |
| Volpi Michelangelo | Conversion of Derivative Security | 12.8.2026 | 34,362,806 | -14,692 | — |
| Volpi Michelangelo | Open Market Sale | 12.8.2026 | 0 | -14,692 | $7.00 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
191,323,412 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 195,515,971 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
59.4% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 61.3% 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