Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Technology · ·
$30.99
▲ $0.42 (+1.4%)
Market data updated: 09/24 09:50 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/24/2026
News analyzed: 09/24/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
$30.20 - $31.18
52-Week Range
$26.39 - $41.22
Beta
—
Next Earnings
04.11.2026
Support
$29.78
Resistance
$41.22
CARG is a stock from the Technology sector — Software, hardware, chip, and computing-services companies — revenue tied to the pace of innovation and upgrade cycles.
-19.2% (1Y)
Strengths: 16/31 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
🟡 Mixed
Technical Trend
🔴 Bearish
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $39.91 vs. price $30.99 (+28.8%)
Fair Value
Biggest negative driver
Daily volatility (ATR)
ATR: 4.3% of price
Risk
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
57
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
79
Quality
63
Value
62
Momentum
10
Risk
54
Sentiment
80
Fundamental
83
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 CarGurus, Inc. highlights its financial momentum, with Q2 earnings outperforming expectations and strong valuation metrics like Peter Lynch’s growth-at-reasonable-price criteria. The company has also made strategic hires, including Matthew Mandel as CFO, and partnered with brands like Chicco for safety-focused initiatives. Additionally, CarGurus has collaborated with NFL figures to promote its platform, while insider and executive share sales have drawn attention. Analysts suggest the stock may be undervalued if growth trends continue.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about CarGurus, Inc.. News trend score: 80. Reason: 7 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 2 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
31
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
42
Psychology
48
Fundamentals
83
Technical
10
Valuation
62
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
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 stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price (3M)
-1%
Market Narrative
32
Fundamental Reality
42
Narrative Gap
-10
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
CARG’s psychology is fragmented, with no dominant state but notable tension between extreme sentiment (100/100) and weak technicals (RSI 34, negative ROC). Herding and anchoring (both 32) suggest traders are fixated on recent price levels and peer performance, while euphoria’s disconnect from valuation (-15% DCF) hints at mispricing. The narrative-reality gap (1 point) implies minor misalignment, but the lack of clear momentum or extreme volatility (ATR 0.87x) keeps behavior cautious. The key question: *Will sentiment-driven buying sustain despite technical weakness?*
Updated: 09/06/2026, 04:40 PM
👥 What the crowd believes
"CarGurus Taps Matthew Mandel as CFO"
"Cargurus Insider Sold Shares Worth $365,000"
"CarGurus (CARG) Could Be 12% Undervalued If Its Growth Narrative Holds"
"Chicco and CarGurus Introduce The Family Fit Factor"
📈 12D 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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jesse Livermore — 13/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for CARG reflects deep methodological contrasts. At the top, Nelson and Bagehot’s near-perfect scores suggest this stock aligns with cyclical oversold conditions and robust liquidity, positioning it as a defensive or contrarian bet. Meanwhile, Lynch and Fisher’s high scores highlight growth potential and exceptional quality, appealing to value-growth hybrids. The middle tier—Marks, Smith, and Loeb—balances risk and long-term holdability, while the efficient-market camp and Graham’s stricter tests flag skepticism, questioning whether the stock’s edge justifies active selection. Livermore’s low score, however, stands out as an outlier, dismissing it outright due to trend resistance, illustrating how trend-following and fundamental growth strategies can clash entirely.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 100
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 97
Strong liquidity — would likely survive a real credit squeeze
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 89
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 85
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟢 75
Exceptional company quality by Fisher's standards
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 75
Risk appears reasonably priced — no obvious cycle-timing red flag
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟢 71
Growth appears aligned with real value creation
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 65
Looks like a real 'buy and hold for a decade' candidate
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)
🟡 63
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 61
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)
🟡 59
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 58
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 57
Mixed — doesn't clearly pass Graham's tests
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 56
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
🔴 32
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?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 13
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
Based on the last 282 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (0 bullish · 10 bearish · 1 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 downtrend 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
92.8%
Operating Margin
27.0%
Net Margin
17.2%
EBITDA Margin
30.1%
ROE
41.7%
ROA
23.6%
ROIC
—
EPS
$1.58
Cash
$190.52M
Total Debt
$0
Current Ratio
2.81
Debt/Equity
0.00
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$30.99
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$39.91
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
+28.8%
🟢 Appears cheap 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% | $274.45M | $251.79M |
| 2 | -3.1% | $265.88M | $223.78M |
| 3 | -1.2% | $262.55M | $202.74M |
| 4 | 0.6% | $264.19M | $187.16M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $270.80M | $176.00M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$288.90M
Terminal Value
$4.27B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$2.78B
Enterprise Value
$3.82B
Net Debt
$-190.52M
Equity Value
$4.01B
*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
$3.73
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$3.41
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 7 positive, 11 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
ChartMill · 24.9.2026
Yahoo · 23.9.2026
Yahoo · 22.9.2026
Yahoo · 21.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
ChartMill · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
Motley Fool · 9.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
StockStory · 4.9.2026
MT Newswires · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 3.9.2026
Benzinga · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 1.9.2026
PR Newswire · 1.9.2026
ChartMill · 1.9.2026
MT Newswires · 31.8.2026
Yahoo · 30.8.2026
CarGurus, Inc. (CARG) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 57/100, 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.
CARG currently scores 57/100 (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, CARG's estimated fair value is $39.91, which is 28.8% above the current price of $30.99. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
CARG's technical score is 10/100, 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: Estimated fair value: $39.91 vs. price $30.99 (+28.8%); Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 675.0%; Free cash flow growth: 60.2%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: ATR: 4.3% of price; Price is below the 50-day average; Price is below the 200-day average.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for CARG.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 17 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zales Samuel | Open Market Sale | 28.8.2026 | 465,349 | -10,000 | $36.50 |
| Zales Samuel | Open Market Sale | 28.8.2026 | 10,000 | -10,000 | $36.50 |
| Elshareef Ismail | Open Market Sale | 14.8.2026 | 8,957 | -8,957 | $38.00 |
| Sarnoff Dafna | Open Market Sale | 13.8.2026 | 17,151 | -17,151 | $37.00 |
| Sarnoff Dafna | Open Market Sale | 13.8.2026 | 109,668 | -17,151 | $37.00 |
| Schwartz Greg M | Open Market Sale | 12.8.2026 | 10,000 | -10,000 | $36.07 |
| Schwartz Greg M | Open Market Sale | 12.8.2026 | 8,716 | -10,000 | $36.07 |
| Trevisan Jason | Open Market Sale | 7.8.2026 | 1,100 | -1,100 | $41.06 |
| Trevisan Jason | Open Market Sale | 7.8.2026 | 674,762 | -1,100 | $41.06 |
| Zamora Javier | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 6,205 | -6,205 | $37.08 |
| Zamora Javier | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 80,260 | -6,205 | $37.08 |
| Elshareef Ismail | Tax Withholding in Shares | 31.7.2026 | 2,300 | -2,300 | $36.24 |
| Zamora Javier | Tax Withholding in Shares | 31.7.2026 | 1,880 | -1,880 | $36.24 |
| Elshareef Ismail | Tax Withholding in Shares | 31.7.2026 | 142,694 | -2,300 | $36.24 |
| Zamora Javier | Tax Withholding in Shares | 31.7.2026 | 86,465 | -1,880 | $36.24 |
| Quinn Matthew Todd | Open Market Sale | 2.7.2026 | 3,824 | -3,824 | $35.03 |
| Hanson Jennifer Ladd | Open Market Sale | 2.7.2026 | 567 | -567 | $35.03 |
| Zamora Javier | Open Market Sale | 2.7.2026 | 3,533 | -3,533 | $36.06 |
| Hanson Jennifer Ladd | Open Market Sale | 2.7.2026 | 91,135 | -567 | $35.03 |
| Quinn Matthew Todd | Open Market Sale | 2.7.2026 | 233,146 | -3,824 | $35.03 |
| Zamora Javier | Open Market Sale | 2.7.2026 | 88,345 | -3,533 | $36.06 |
| Quinn Matthew Todd | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.7.2026 | 9,128 | -9,128 | $35.14 |
| Trevisan Jason | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.7.2026 | 21,509 | -21,509 | $35.14 |
| Steinert Langley | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.7.2026 | 12,654 | -12,654 | $35.14 |
| Zamora Javier | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.7.2026 | 4,119 | -4,119 | $35.14 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
6,386,305 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 6,970,307 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
70.4% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 66.3% 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