Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Staples · ·
$1.34
▼ $0.03 (-2.2%)
Market data updated: 09/21 06:39 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/21/2026
News analyzed: 09/21/2026
Market Cap
$28.76M
Day Range
$1.32 - $1.34
52-Week Range
$0.60 - $5.02
Beta
—
Next Earnings
—
Support
$0.70
Resistance
$2.42
BRLS is a stock from the Consumer Defensive sector — Food, beverages, and household products — steady demand even in a recession, since these are essential consumer goods.
-47.9% (1Y)
Strengths: 12/28 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
🟡 Mixed
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: 28.8%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
Operating margin
Operating margin: -43.4% (negative)
Fundamental
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
52
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
68
Quality
63
Value
50
Momentum
59
Risk
32
Sentiment
68
Fundamental
22
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 Borealis Foods Inc. highlights its rapid expansion in the U.S. K-12 foodservice market, where revenue surged **110% year-over-year** amid national growth efforts. The company also expanded distribution of its **protein-rich Chef Woo Noodles** through Costco and emphasized strategic manufacturing partnerships with global food brands. However, it faced regulatory scrutiny after receiving a **Nasdaq deficiency notice** for delayed quarterly filings. Overall, the focus remains on aggressive market penetration and product diversification.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Borealis Foods Inc. - Class A Common. News trend score: 68. Reason: 6 of the last 10 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
35
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
42
Psychology
50
Fundamentals
22
Technical
59
Valuation
50
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental 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 stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price (3M)
+5%
Market Narrative
75
Fundamental Reality
42
Narrative Gap
+33
🔀 Weak-Conviction Rally
Price is moving, but not accompanied by a matching rise in news attention/sentiment.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s dominant overconfidence—driven by a 43.6% price surge against stagnant EPS growth—suggests traders are prioritizing momentum over fundamentals. The narrative gap (72 vs. 42) further implies optimism outpaces reality, while FOMO (42) and euphoria (36) reinforce speculative positioning. Loss aversion (66) hints at lingering caution from prior declines, but the absence of herding or anchoring suggests confidence is isolated to this stock. The key question: *Will momentum sustain despite the 30-point narrative gap?*
Updated: 09/07/2026, 05:41 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Revenue from the channel increasing 110% compared [to prior year]"
"continued national expansion in the U.S. K–12 foodservice market"
"CEO highlights Manufacturing Partnerships with Leading Global Food Companies"
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
Peter Lynch — 77/100
🔴 Weakest match
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — 29/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark contrast in verdicts for BRLS reflects deep methodological divides between growth-focused and risk-averse investors. Thorstein Veblen and Peter Lynch’s high scores (89 and 73) suggest they’d see this stock as a promising bet tied to real value creation or undervalued growth potential, aligning with their emphasis on innovation and market lag. Meanwhile, the lowest scores—from Graham, Bagehot, and Loeb (all at 0 or 13)—stem from fundamental concerns: Graham lacks valuation data, Bagehot flags liquidity risks, and Loeb sees it as a capital-threatening gamble. Even mid-tier thinkers like Marks or Schwager (64–65) hedge their optimism, noting cyclicality or disciplined setups, while Fisher (41) dismisses it outright for lacking his signature quality. The divide underscores whether the stock’s volatility or speculative traits justify its appeal to growth hunters or if it’s a speculative trap for those prioritizing stability.
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 77
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟢 74
Growth appears aligned with real value creation
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 64
Some signs of crowd excitement building
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)
🟡 58
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 58
Reasonable but not a clear long-term holding
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 54
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 50
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: 30%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 48
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)
🟡 48
No clear edge either way
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)
🟡 48
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 42
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 41
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 31
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 29
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🔴 29
Cycle looks stretched toward overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 0
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: 20%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 281 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟡 Indicators are mixed — no clear bias (6 bullish · 6 bearish · 0 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.
Gross Margin
11.7%
Operating Margin
-43.4%
Net Margin
-63.1%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
-20.2%
ROA
-36.1%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$0.89
Cash
$64.00K
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
0.12
Debt/Equity
0.27
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
—
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
—
Not enough data to compute signals.
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 6 positive, 1 neutral, 3 negative out of the last 10 articles.
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 2.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 2.9.2026
ChartMill · 26.8.2026
Yahoo · 26.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 26.8.2026
Benzinga · 26.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 15.7.2026
GlobeNewswire · 10.7.2026
Zacks · 6.7.2026
Borealis Foods Inc. - Class A Common (BRLS) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 52/100, 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.
BRLS currently scores 52/100 (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.
BRLS's technical score is 59/100, which currently reads as neutral — 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: 28.8%; Net income growth: 25.1%; Operating margin is stable or improving over time.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Operating margin: -43.4% (negative); Net margin: -63.1% (negative); ATR: 13.0% of price.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for BRLS.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 14 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oxus Capital PTE. LTD. | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.4.2026 | 0 | +0 | — |
| Rakishev Kenges | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.4.2026 | 0 | +0 | — |
| Diachenko Sergii | Open Market Purchase | 23.3.2026 | 961 | +961 | $0.06 |
| Diachenko Sergii | Open Market Purchase | 23.3.2026 | 3,072,471 | +961 | $0.06 |
| Diachenko Sergii | Open Market Purchase | 20.3.2026 | 45,875 | +45,875 | $0.06 |
| Diachenko Sergii | Open Market Purchase | 20.3.2026 | 4,075 | +4,075 | $0.06 |
| Diachenko Sergii | Open Market Purchase | 20.3.2026 | 3,067,435 | +45,875 | $0.06 |
| Diachenko Sergii | Open Market Purchase | 20.3.2026 | 3,071,510 | +4,075 | $0.06 |
| Diachenko Sergii | Open Market Purchase | 18.3.2026 | 4,025 | +4,025 | $0.06 |
| Diachenko Sergii | Open Market Purchase | 18.3.2026 | 3,021,560 | +4,025 | $0.06 |
| Diachenko Sergii | Open Market Purchase | 5.3.2026 | 400 | +400 | $0.06 |
| Diachenko Sergii | Open Market Purchase | 5.3.2026 | 3,017,535 | +400 | $0.06 |
| Diachenko Sergii | Open Market Purchase | 3.3.2026 | 200 | +200 | $0.06 |
| Diachenko Sergii | Open Market Purchase | 3.3.2026 | 16,935 | +16,935 | $0.06 |
| Diachenko Sergii | Open Market Purchase | 3.3.2026 | 3,000,200 | +200 | $0.06 |
| Diachenko Sergii | Open Market Purchase | 3.3.2026 | 3,017,135 | +16,935 | $0.06 |
| Helg Barthelemy | Other Transaction | 12.1.2026 | 500,000 | -500,000 | — |
| Soltanzadeh Reza | Other Transaction | 12.1.2026 | 500,000 | -500,000 | — |
| Soltanzadeh Reza | Other Transaction | 12.1.2026 | 3,032,505 | -500,000 | — |
| Helg Barthelemy | Other Transaction | 12.1.2026 | 2,718,056 | -500,000 | — |
| Khemka Shiv Vikram | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.5.2025 | 20,000 | +20,000 | — |
| COUSIN ERTHARIN | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.5.2025 | 20,000 | +20,000 | — |
| OYER STEVEN M | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.5.2025 | 20,000 | +20,000 | — |
| Mynzhanov Kanat | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.5.2025 | 10,000 | +10,000 | — |
| Helg Barthelemy | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.5.2025 | 20,000 | +20,000 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
59,971 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 182,209 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
31.3% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 41.4% 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