Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Telecommunications · ·
$4.74
▲ $0.01 (+0.2%)
Market data updated: 09/24 08:41 PM
News analyzed: 09/24/2026
Market Cap
$33.32M
Day Range
$4.62 - $4.76
52-Week Range
$3.80 - $6.72
Beta
—
Next Earnings
30.11.2026
Support
$4.20
Resistance
$5.05
-0.2% (1Y)
🟡 Moderate
Strengths: 7/14 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
🟡 Mixed
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Price vs. SMA 50
Price is above the 50-day average
Technical
Biggest negative driver
Calmar Ratio (return vs. drawdown)
Calmar: 0.18 (3y annualized return 6.7% / max drawdown 37.7%)
Risk
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
NO RELIABLE ECHO FOUND
Only 3 historical analog(s) found after removing overlapping dates — too few for a statistically meaningful comparison.
Historical matches considered: 3
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
65
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.
🕰️ StockIQ Time Machine
What did StockIQ know — and when? Pick a date from the real accumulated history.
As of September 2, 2026
Then
71
$4.66
Now
65
$4.74
What happened since
Signals detected by this date
No signals detected by this date
🧬 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
68
Risk
42
Sentiment
68
Fundamental
No data available
Institutional
50
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 B.O.S. Better Online Solutions has centered on its strong financial performance and defense sector growth. The company reported a record backlog and beating earnings estimates in Q2 2026, with EPS of $0.19 (vs. $0.13 expected) and sales of $14.853 million (surpassing $12.968 million forecasts). Additionally, it secured a $2.3 million defense contract from an Israeli client, reinforcing its supply chain technology focus in aerospace, defense, and industrial sectors. The company also affirmed its FY2026 sales guidance at $51 million.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about B.O.S. Better Online Solutions. News trend score: 68. Reason: 4 of the last 20 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
15
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
46
Fundamentals
—
Technical
68
Valuation
—
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.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price (3M)
+7%
Market Narrative
54
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
+4
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior for BOSC suggests a FOMO-driven but restrained environment, where positive momentum (+2.4% ROC) and moderate sentiment (56/100) create cautious optimism. Elevated volatility (1.16x ATR) hints at lingering uncertainty, but it’s not severe enough to trigger panic. The narrow narrative gap (-1) implies a balanced perception of reality, with no extreme misalignment. The key question: *Will the stock’s slight outperformance today sustain, or will volatility escalate if momentum stalls?*
Updated: 09/07/2026, 04:52 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"$2.3 million order from a leading Israeli defense customer"
"quarterly earnings of $0.19 per share beat estimate of $0.13"
"affirms FY2026 sales outlook of $51.000M vs $51.644M estimate"
"record backlog and strong Q2 performance"
📈 8D 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
Charles Mackay — 75/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jack Schwager — 45/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark contrast in verdicts for BOSC reflects deep methodological divides among these investors. Charles Mackay’s high score and clear ‘no mania’ verdict stand out as an outlier, suggesting his crowd psychology framework sees little speculative frenzy—unlike most others who lack decisive signals. Meanwhile, the cluster of mid-range scores (50–56) from Livermore, Nelson, Schwager, and even Marks (who flags ‘high expectations’) implies a consensus of caution: no strong buy signal, but also no outright rejection. The lower scores (41–45) from Housel and Loeb lean toward defensiveness, prioritizing risk management or patience, while the near-unanimous ‘50’ verdicts—from Graham, Fisher, Lynch, and the efficient-market camp—highlight a fundamental data gap: without robust valuation, growth, or balance-sheet insights, these methodologies can’t form a confident opinion. Only Veblen’s mixed ‘growth-to-profit’ signal adds a nuance of skepticism, contrasting with Mackay’s optimism.
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 75
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 55
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)
🟡 55
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)
🟡 53
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)
🟡 51
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
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%
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 48
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)
🟡 46
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
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)
🟡 46
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 45
No clear edge either way
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)
🔴 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
Based on the last 283 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.
High 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.
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 4 positive, 15 neutral, 1 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 22.9.2026
Benzinga · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 10.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 1.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 1.9.2026
Benzinga · 1.9.2026
GuruFocus.com · 20.8.2026
Moby · 20.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 20.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 20.8.2026
Benzinga · 20.8.2026
Benzinga · 20.8.2026
Benzinga · 20.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 10.8.2026
Benzinga · 10.8.2026
StockIQ doesn't currently have enough real data to compute a reliable score for B.O.S. Better Online Solutions (BOSC) — 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 BOSC 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.
BOSC's technical score is 68/100, 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: Price is above the 50-day average; Price is above the 200-day average; RSI 57.1 — healthy positive momentum.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Calmar: 0.18 (3y annualized return 6.7% / max drawdown 37.7%); MACD histogram is negative — falling momentum; Price is below the SAR point — downtrend.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for BOSC.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 2 purchases and 2 sales out of the last 4 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cohen Eyal | Open Market Purchase | 12.6.2026 | 1,000 | +1,000 | $4.29 |
| Cohen Eyal | Open Market Purchase | 12.6.2026 | 41,283 | +1,000 | $4.29 |
| BOS BETTER ONLINE SOLUTIONS LTD | Open Market Sale | 3.3.2010 | 61,440,944 | -61,440,944 | — |
| BOS BETTER ONLINE SOLUTIONS LTD | Open Market Sale | 3.3.2010 | 1,430,178 | -1,430,178 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
19,106 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 16,480 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
64.1% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 37.4% 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