Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Information Technology · ·
$282.90
▲ $2.14 (+0.8%)
Market data updated: 09/18 08:58 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/18/2026
News analyzed: 09/18/2026
Market Cap
$78.03B
Day Range
$280.49 - $284.98
52-Week Range
$262.75 - $416.69
Beta
—
Next Earnings
26.10.2026
Support
$273.07
Resistance
$391.00
CDNS is a stock from the Technology sector — Software, hardware, chip, and computing-services companies — revenue tied to the pace of innovation and upgrade cycles.
-22.5% (1Y)
Strengths: 13/31 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
Free cash flow growth
Free cash flow growth: 41.9%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $118.45 vs. price $282.90 (-58.1%)
Fair Value
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (67/100), but fair-value analysis scores this stock as relatively expensive (33/100) — the growth story and the current price aren't fully aligned.
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
75/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
89/100
Analog Quality
+13.7%
Median 40D Outcome
51/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
80%
+4.1% … +13.3%
🟡 Base
0%
— … —
🔴 Bearish
20%
-3.4% … -1.9%
Typical timeframe (based on real historical rates clearing a 60% bar): 5 trading days.
📌 Bottom line: Out of 15 similar historical cases for this stock, 80% (95% CI 55%–93%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of +5.1%.
Echo #1 — Oversold Reversal
6 occurrence(s) · 83% historical success
Historical outcome rate is not a probability — it's what happened in this specific historical sample, with a 95% confidence range.
| Horizon | Positive rate (95% CI) | Median | 25th–75th pct | Baseline median |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5D | 73% (48%–89%) | +3.0% | +0.9% … +5.0% | +0.6% |
| 10D | 60% (36%–80%) | +5.3% | -1.0% … +9.0% | +1.4% |
| 20D | 80% (55%–93%) | +5.1% | +1.5% … +10.5% | +2.4% |
| 40D | 87% (62%–96%) | +13.7% | +4.8% … +18.0% | +4.5% |
| 60D | 80% (55%–93%) | +20.6% | +5.0% … +24.4% | +7.5% |
Sample size: 15 analogs, each at least 10 trading days apart (no double-counted overlapping events).
What happened after each historical match (20-day return)
| Date | Similarity | Regime | 20D outcome | 60D outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-03-07 | 75/100 | ✓ Downtrend | -4.2% | +20.6% |
| 2018-02-14 | 74/100 | Consolidation | +1.2% | +9.4% |
| 2026-04-10 | 71/100 | ✓ Downtrend | +36.5% | +40.8% |
| 2022-10-26 | 70/100 | ✓ Downtrend | +12.4% | +22.4% |
| 2024-08-01 | 69/100 | ✓ Downtrend | +1.8% | -1.3% |
| 2022-01-28 | 69/100 | ✓ Downtrend | +4.1% | +4.2% |
| 2021-05-12 | 68/100 | Consolidation | +5.5% | +24.1% |
| 2022-02-18 | 67/100 | Downtrend | +16.5% | +5.9% |
| 2025-11-24 | 66/100 | Consolidation | +4.1% | -8.1% |
| 2026-02-06 | 66/100 | ✓ Downtrend | +5.1% | +24.7% |
| 2020-09-18 | 64/100 | Consolidation | +16.0% | +21.6% |
| 2020-03-06 | 64/100 | Downtrend | -1.2% | +42.7% |
| 2024-09-06 | 63/100 | ✓ Downtrend | +8.5% | +25.4% |
| 2025-10-15 | 62/100 | Consolidation | -2.6% | +0.4% |
| 2025-06-05 | 61/100 | Uptrend | +8.1% | +15.7% |
Every accepted match is compared to today across 6 domains (price structure, momentum, technical, volatility, volume, relative strength) using z-scored feature distances — no single indicator dominates. Matches within 10 trading days of each other count as one event, not independent evidence. Outcome rates use a Wilson confidence interval (never a raw percentage alone), the mean return is winsorized against extreme outliers, and "Analog Quality" separately captures sample size, data completeness, and regime match — distinct from raw similarity. Relative strength is measured against SPY and against XLK (this stock's sector).
Cross-stock analogs — real other companies, not this stock's own history.
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
50
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 August 23, 2026
Then
51
$319.02
Now
50
$282.90
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
67
Quality
63
Value
33
Momentum
9
Risk
54
Sentiment
68
Fundamental
83
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING CDNS...
Recent media coverage of **Cadence Design Systems** has centered on its **PCIe 6.0 advancements**, particularly the first-pass compliance of its PHY and controller IP on TSMC’s N3 process, which positions the company as a leader in high-speed interconnect technology for AI and high-performance computing. Analysts debate whether the stock remains **overvalued**, despite strong long-term returns (75.4% over five years), while short-term performance has weakened (down ~22% over 90 days). The focus highlights Cadence’s role in AI chip design tools and its competitive edge in emerging standards.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Cadence Design Systems. News trend score: 68. Reason: 9 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 6 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
24
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
42
Psychology
56
Fundamentals
83
Technical
9
Valuation
33
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
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.
Price (3M)
-27%
Market Narrative
53
Fundamental Reality
42
Narrative Gap
+11
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s dominant anchoring behavior—with the stock hovering 0.5% above support—suggests traders are fixated on this near-term level, possibly due to recent price action. Overconfidence (45) and loss aversion (38) coexist, as traders may cling to overvalued expectations (+140% DCF premium) despite divergence from fundamentals. The narrative gap (8) hints at a disconnect between perceived value and reality, but the key question remains: will traders break the 0.5% anchor or hold near support? Panic selling (33) and herd behavior (22) are muted, indicating no extreme collective panic or imitation yet. The absence of confirmation bias (0) further implies no selective reinforcement of existing views.
Updated: 09/08/2026, 07:58 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Cadence reported first pass compliance for its PCIe 6.0 PHY and controller IP on TSMC’s N3 process (article 4)."
"Cadence stock still looks overvalued despite AI chip demand (article 2)."
"Stock down 22.19% over 90 days despite 75.4% 5-year total return (article 4)."
📈 10D 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 — 93/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jesse Livermore — 19/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock’s starkly divided verdicts reflect a clash between cyclical bullishness and fundamental caution. Methodologies like Nelson (100), Marks-Cycle (94), and Bagehot (91) see it as a cyclical opportunity—either near oversold, early-to-mid-cycle, or resilient to liquidity shocks—suggesting a macro-driven or defensive play. Meanwhile, Fisher (79) and Schwager (68) lean toward quality and disciplined setups, though even they temper enthusiasm, while Graham (27) and Livermore (18) dismiss it outright, citing valuation gaps and trend resistance. The middle ground—Marks (53), Loeb (50), and Housel (55)—acknowledges potential but flags overvaluation or execution risks, illustrating a tension between growth optimism and hard-nosed valuation discipline.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 93
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)
🟢 91
Strong liquidity — would likely survive a real credit squeeze
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 89
Looks early-to-mid cycle, not overextended
Key question
Where are we in the cycle right now — near a hot extreme, or a cold one?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟢 79
Exceptional company quality by Fisher's standards
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 69
A real, disciplined setup with favorable reward/risk
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)
🟡 61
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 60
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 53
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 46
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 46
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 33
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 31
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 27
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 19
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 300 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (0 bullish · 11 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 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
86.4%
Operating Margin
28.2%
Net Margin
20.9%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
20.3%
ROA
10.9%
ROIC
—
EPS
$4.09
Cash
$3.00B
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
2.86
Debt/Equity
0.45
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$282.90
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$118.45
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-58.1%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
14.1%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 14.1% | $1.81B | $1.66B |
| 2 | 11.2% | $2.01B | $1.70B |
| 3 | 8.3% | $2.18B | $1.69B |
| 4 | 5.4% | $2.30B | $1.63B |
| 5 | 2.5% | $2.36B | $1.53B |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$1.59B
Terminal Value
$37.19B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$24.17B
Enterprise Value
$32.37B
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$32.37B
*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
$20.14
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$17.50
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 9 positive, 5 neutral, 6 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Trefis · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Zacks · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 12.9.2026
24/7 Wall St. · 12.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Trefis · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Cadence Design Systems (CDNS) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 50/100, 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.
CDNS currently scores 50/100 (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, CDNS's estimated fair value is $118.45, which is 58.1% below the current price of $282.90. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
CDNS's technical score is 9/100, 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: Free cash flow growth: 41.9%; Operating margin is stable or improving over time; Return on equity (ROE): 20.3% — strong.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $118.45 vs. price $282.90 (-58.1%); Calmar: 0.17 (3y annualized return 5.8% / max drawdown 34.2%); Price is below the 50-day average.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for CDNS.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 15 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scannell Paul | Open Market Sale | 26.8.2026 | 31,720 | -280 | $339.00 |
| Scannell Paul | Open Market Sale | 26.8.2026 | 280 | -280 | $339.00 |
| SANGIOVANNI VINCENTELLI ALBERTO | Open Market Sale | 25.8.2026 | 41,764 | -280 | $318.33 |
| SANGIOVANNI VINCENTELLI ALBERTO | Open Market Sale | 25.8.2026 | 40,794 | -41 | $324.66 |
| Cunningham Paul | Gift | 25.8.2026 | 123,586 | -1,000 | — |
| SANGIOVANNI VINCENTELLI ALBERTO | Open Market Sale | 25.8.2026 | 40,835 | -309 | $323.54 |
| SANGIOVANNI VINCENTELLI ALBERTO | Open Market Sale | 25.8.2026 | 41,524 | -240 | $319.31 |
| SANGIOVANNI VINCENTELLI ALBERTO | Open Market Sale | 25.8.2026 | 41,144 | -380 | $321.16 |
| SANGIOVANNI VINCENTELLI ALBERTO | Open Market Sale | 25.8.2026 | 380 | -380 | $321.16 |
| SANGIOVANNI VINCENTELLI ALBERTO | Open Market Sale | 25.8.2026 | 309 | -309 | $323.54 |
| SANGIOVANNI VINCENTELLI ALBERTO | Open Market Sale | 25.8.2026 | 280 | -280 | $318.33 |
| Cunningham Paul | Gift | 25.8.2026 | 1,000 | -1,000 | — |
| SANGIOVANNI VINCENTELLI ALBERTO | Open Market Sale | 25.8.2026 | 41 | -41 | $324.66 |
| SANGIOVANNI VINCENTELLI ALBERTO | Open Market Sale | 25.8.2026 | 240 | -240 | $319.31 |
| TENG CHIN-CHI | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 21.8.2026 | 1,000 | -1,000 | — |
| TENG CHIN-CHI | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 21.8.2026 | 1,000 | +1,000 | $202.94 |
| TENG CHIN-CHI | Open Market Sale | 21.8.2026 | 4,732 | -4,732 | $314.49 |
| TENG CHIN-CHI | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 21.8.2026 | 8,668 | -1,000 | — |
| TENG CHIN-CHI | Open Market Sale | 21.8.2026 | 138,049 | -4,732 | $314.49 |
| TENG CHIN-CHI | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 21.8.2026 | 142,781 | +1,000 | $202.94 |
| Cunningham Paul | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 17.8.2026 | 1,000 | -1,000 | — |
| Cunningham Paul | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 17.8.2026 | 1,000 | +1,000 | $138.02 |
| Cunningham Paul | Open Market Sale | 17.8.2026 | 2,000 | -2,000 | $323.32 |
| Scannell Paul | Tax Withholding in Shares | 17.8.2026 | 181 | -181 | $323.47 |
| SOHN YOUNG | Gift | 30.7.2026 | 9 | -9 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
5,809,747 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 6,099,964 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
40.2% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 46.2% 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