Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$74.62
▼ $1.00 (-1.3%)
Market data updated: 09/19 08:53 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
$6.61B
Day Range
$72.86 - $75.87
52-Week Range
$35.64 - $80.97
Beta
—
Next Earnings
12.11.2026
Support
$67.12
Resistance
$80.97
CGON is a stock from the Healthcare sector — Pharmaceuticals, biotech, medical devices, and health insurance — less sensitive to economic cycles, but exposed to regulation and FDA approvals.
+92.2% (1Y)
Strengths: 12/29 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
🟢 Bullish
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Revenue growth (last year)
Revenue growth (last year): 254.7%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: -$43.35 vs. price $74.62 (-158.1%)
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
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.
🧬 STOCK DNA
This stock's profile across 8 real dimensions — a research tool, not a recommendation
Growth
40
Quality
63
Value
38
Momentum
66
Risk
54
Sentiment
62
Fundamental
34
Institutional
11
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 **CG Oncology, Inc.** has focused on its **sharp stock performance**, with shares surging **160% over the past year**, prompting investor scrutiny over whether the valuation reflects its potential. Analysts highlight **execution risk** in translating its clinical pipeline—particularly in **oncolytic virus therapies**—into revenue, while the company prepares to present at major investor conferences in September. Technical analysts also note strong momentum, though broader market skepticism lingers about whether the rally is fully priced. No new product approvals or major trial updates were reported.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about CG Oncology, Inc.. News trend score: 62. Reason: 6 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 4 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
17
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
61
Psychology
55
Fundamentals
34
Technical
66
Valuation
38
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
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)
+22%
Market Narrative
47
Fundamental Reality
61
Narrative Gap
-14
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior for CGON suggests a **lack of dominant psychological bias**, with herding (score: 38) as the highest but not decisive state. The stock’s underperformance relative to peers today (–1.7% vs. –0.6%) aligns with herding dynamics, while muted momentum and volume rule out FOMO or panic. The narrative gap (reality > narrative) implies investors may be underestimating fundamentals, yet no clear bias emerges. The key question: *Is the underperformance temporary or signaling deeper skepticism?*
Updated: 09/08/2026, 09:33 PM
👥 What the crowd believes
"CG Oncology stock has delivered very strong 1 year gains, yet the broader valuation checks and current pricing leave investors weighing how much of the story is already reflected in the share price."
"expectations for CG Oncology to turn its pipeline into durable revenue can support the current valuation, while execution risk around clinical..."
"RBC Capital maintains Outperform on CG Oncology, lowers price target to $79"
"Oncolytic Virus Cancer Therapy Market Expected to Expand Rapidly During the Forecast Period (2026-2036)"
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
Thorstein Veblen — 21/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Based on their documented principles, the model estimates that Bagehot’s liquidity focus and Nelson’s cycle analysis drive the highest scores, reflecting strong balance‑sheet resilience and a favorable position in the credit cycle. In contrast, value‑oriented investors such as Graham and the Enterprising Graham framework assign moderate to low scores because the stock does not meet strict margin‑of‑safety or cheapness criteria. Growth‑focused thinkers like Fisher, Lynch, and Marks see mixed signals, noting that while the business is solid, much of the anticipated growth appears already priced in. Finally, momentum and behavioral perspectives from Livermore, Housel, and Veblen yield the lowest scores, flagging negative trends, high volatility, and a pattern of growth pursued for its own sake.
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 73
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 72
No obvious signs of crowd mania
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)
🟡 61
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)
🟡 60
Mixed — doesn't clearly pass Graham's tests
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 60
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 57
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)
🟡 57
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 56
Mixed — growth exists but the price already reflects much of it
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 48
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 45
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 44
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
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 34
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 33
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 21
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
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 (5 bullish · 2 bearish · 3 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.
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
—
Operating Margin
-4722.1%
Net Margin
-3985.0%
EBITDA Margin
-4686.4%
ROE
-21.4%
ROA
-20.3%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$2.08
Cash
$32.49M
Total Debt
$3.00M
Current Ratio
24.63
Debt/Equity
0.00
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$74.62
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$43.35
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-158.1%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
25.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 25.0% | $-165.60M | $-151.93M |
| 2 | 19.4% | $-197.69M | $-166.39M |
| 3 | 13.8% | $-224.87M | $-173.64M |
| 4 | 8.1% | $-243.14M | $-172.24M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-249.22M | $-161.97M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-132.48M
Terminal Value
$-3.93B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-2.55B
Enterprise Value
$-3.38B
Net Debt
$-29.49M
Equity Value
$-3.35B
*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
$9.74
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$9.60
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 6 positive, 10 neutral, 4 negative out of the last 20 articles.
SeekingAlpha · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Schaeffer's Investment Research · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
Simply Wall St. · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 2.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 2.9.2026
Yahoo · 26.8.2026
PR Newswire · 26.8.2026
Benzinga · 24.8.2026
ChartMill · 19.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 13.8.2026
Benzinga · 7.8.2026
Benzinga · 7.8.2026
MT Newswires · 7.8.2026
MT Newswires · 7.8.2026
Benzinga · 7.8.2026
Yahoo · 6.8.2026
Zacks · 6.8.2026
MT Newswires · 6.8.2026
CG Oncology, Inc. (CGON) 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.
CGON 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, CGON's estimated fair value is -$43.35, which is 158.1% below the current price of $74.62. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
CGON's technical score is 66/100, 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: Revenue growth (last year): 254.7%; Operating margin is stable or improving over time; Debt/equity: 0.00.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: -$43.35 vs. price $74.62 (-158.1%); Operating margin: -4722.1% (negative); Net margin: -3985.0% (negative).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for CGON.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 1 purchases and 8 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| POST LEONARD E | Open Market Sale | 14.8.2026 | 1,000 | -1,000 | $74.54 |
| POST LEONARD E | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 14.8.2026 | 1,000 | -1,000 | — |
| POST LEONARD E | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 14.8.2026 | 1,000 | +1,000 | $0.60 |
| POST LEONARD E | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 15.7.2026 | 1,000 | -1,000 | — |
| POST LEONARD E | Open Market Sale | 15.7.2026 | 1,000 | -1,000 | $71.17 |
| POST LEONARD E | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 15.7.2026 | 1,000 | +1,000 | $0.60 |
| POST LEONARD E | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 15.7.2026 | 1,000 | +1,000 | $0.60 |
| POST LEONARD E | Open Market Sale | 15.7.2026 | 0 | -1,000 | $71.17 |
| POST LEONARD E | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 15.7.2026 | 105,077 | -1,000 | — |
| Mulay James | Open Market Sale | 10.7.2026 | 24,165 | -24,165 | $75.16 |
| Mulay James | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 10.7.2026 | 24,165 | -24,165 | — |
| Mulay James | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 10.7.2026 | 24,165 | +24,165 | $26.63 |
| Mulay James | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 10.7.2026 | 24,165 | +24,165 | $26.63 |
| Mulay James | Open Market Sale | 10.7.2026 | 0 | -24,165 | $75.16 |
| Mulay James | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 10.7.2026 | 0 | -24,165 | — |
| Liu Brian Guan-Chyun | Open Market Purchase | 25.6.2026 | 371,085 | +371,085 | $66.87 |
| POST LEONARD E | Open Market Sale | 24.6.2026 | 5,000 | -5,000 | $70.00 |
| POST LEONARD E | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 24.6.2026 | 5,000 | -5,000 | — |
| POST LEONARD E | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 24.6.2026 | 5,000 | +5,000 | $0.60 |
| POST LEONARD E | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 24.6.2026 | 5,000 | +5,000 | $0.60 |
| POST LEONARD E | Open Market Sale | 24.6.2026 | 0 | -5,000 | $70.00 |
| POST LEONARD E | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 24.6.2026 | 106,077 | -5,000 | — |
| POST LEONARD E | Open Market Sale | 22.6.2026 | 5,000 | -5,000 | $65.00 |
| POST LEONARD E | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 22.6.2026 | 5,000 | -5,000 | — |
| POST LEONARD E | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 22.6.2026 | 5,000 | +5,000 | $0.60 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
11,396,156 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 11,844,115 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
57.3% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 61.9% 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