Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
· · NYSE
$85.75
▼ $3.38 (-3.8%)
Market data updated: 09/14 06:29 PM
News analyzed: 09/14/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
$84.36 - $85.98
52-Week Range
$55.52 - $105.20
Beta
—
Next Earnings
—
+52.2% (1Y)
🟡 Moderate
Strengths: 7/13 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
🟢 Bullish
Technical Trend
🟢 Bullish
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
Relative strength vs. S&P 500
-7.2% over the last 3 months relative to the index
Technical
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.
Chat (CHAT) presents a mixed technical and risk profile, with a moderate overall score of 64 driven by contrasting signals. While the stock demonstrates positive momentum through its position above both the 50-day and 200-day moving averages and an RSI of 53.8, indicating healthy upward momentum, the MACD histogram’s negative reading suggests weakening momentum. The price’s placement below the SAR point further signals a potential downtrend, and the declining volume despite price gains raises concerns about underlying strength. Risk metrics are moderate, with a Calmar ratio of 1.45 reflecting a volatile but historically high-returning asset (45.5% annualized return over three years, though with a 31.3% max drawdown). The news category stands out as overwhelmingly positive, with multiple articles highlighting CHAT’s AI sector relevance and recent gains, though the neutral/positive tone may not fully account for technical headwinds.
The stock sits above key moving averages (50-day and 200-day) with positive RSI momentum (53.8), but the MACD histogram is negative, and the price is below the SAR point, signaling potential downtrend risk. Volume trends are also weakening despite price gains.
Technical indicators like momentum and moving averages are critical for assessing short-term trends, while volume and SAR signals can indicate sustainability or reversal potential.
All news coverage is neutral to positive, emphasizing CHAT’s AI sector positioning and recent performance gains, with repeated mentions of its potential in AI ETFs and analyst highlights.
Positive news can drive sentiment and institutional interest, but its alignment with technical weakness may limit near-term execution.
The ATR (3.0%) suggests moderate volatility, while the Calmar ratio (1.45) indicates a historically high return (45.5% annualized) with a significant drawdown (31.3%).
High returns with substantial drawdowns imply volatility and potential risk, requiring careful risk management for investors.
StockIQ conclusion
Chat (CHAT) combines positive news sentiment with mixed technical and risk signals, resulting in a moderate overall score. While its AI sector positioning and recent gains attract attention, technical indicators like the MACD and SAR point to potential downside pressures. Investors should weigh the stock’s volatility and drawdown history against its thematic appeal, as external factors could significantly alter its trajectory.
Written automatically from the computed data shown on this page only — not investment advice.
🗓️ 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
76
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
No data available
Quality
No data available
Value
No data available
Momentum
72
Risk
50
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
No data available
Institutional
No data available
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
Not enough comparably-scored stocks yet to show similar matches.
This stock hasn't been analyzed by StockIQAI's movement engine yet — coverage is still expanding. Check back soon.
Recent media coverage of the **Roundhill Generative AI & Technology ETF (CHAT)** highlights its role as a diversified play on AI-driven sectors, particularly generative AI, quantum computing, and robotics. Analysts emphasize its strong performance—including a 68% gain—while comparing it to competitors like AGIX, noting its broad exposure and potential for continued growth amid NVIDIA’s optimistic AI expansion. Stripe’s $8 billion AI infrastructure deal and broader AI ETF trends further underscore the sector’s momentum, positioning CHAT as a key investment for AI-related opportunities.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Roundhill Generative AI & Technology ETF. News trend score: 100. Reason: 12 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
28
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
32
Fundamentals
—
Technical
72
Valuation
—
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 stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price (3M)
-4%
Market Narrative
67
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
+17
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s psychology for CHAT is characterized by detached euphoria—price action exceeds baseline metrics while sentiment remains uniformly positive. The 19.2% premium above the 200-day average, combined with no volatility spikes or panic signals, indicates traders may be ignoring fundamental risks. The narrative gap (67 vs. 50) further suggests overoptimism, as perceptions exceed observable reality. The key question: *Is this detachment rooted in genuine conviction or complacency?*
Updated: 09/06/2026, 12:48 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"AI ETFs offer diversified exposure to a booming industry, giving investors a way to navigate September volatility while staying invested in AI's growth."
"NVIDIA's 70% growth outlook reinforces the AI boom, benefiting ETFs targeting generative AI, quantum computing, robotics and next-gen software."
"Stripe’s $8B OpenRouter AI deal highlights the rising value of AI infrastructure and these two ETFs are giving investors exposure."
"AI capex waterfall is boosting earnings and dividend growth in semis, utilities, and tech."
📈 6D 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
Jesse Livermore — 54/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jack Schwager — 22/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for CHAT reflects deep methodological differences in how these investors assess stocks. Burton Malkiel and John Bogle’s efficient-market approach offers a lukewarm but neutral stance—suggesting the stock lacks clear alpha potential over passive indexing, while the rest of the methodologies either lack sufficient data or outright flag red flags. Investors like Jesse Livermore, Jack Schwager, and Howard Marks (both in his core and cycle frameworks) see this stock as high-risk or late-cycle, with Livermore’s trend-following rule and Schwager’s disciplined wizards’ caution dominating the negative end. Meanwhile, Benjamin Graham and Philip Fisher’s frameworks are stymied by insufficient data, leaving their traditional value or growth screens unable to form a concrete opinion. The contrast between the ‘mixed’ efficient-market view and the outright ‘stay-out’ signals from technical/cycle analysts highlights whether this stock is a speculative gamble or a fundamentally ambiguous opportunity.
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 55
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)
🟡 54
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 52
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
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)
🟡 49
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)
🟡 42
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 39
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?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 30%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 37
Risk/valuation combination Marks would flag as a caution sign
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 31
Looks late-cycle — the position Marks would treat with extra caution
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)
🔴 22
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🔴 0
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 273 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟢 Most indicators support an uptrend (7 bullish · 2 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.
A pattern consistent with an early/mid distribution phase — a trading range after an advance with declining volume.
Medium confidence
$74.31
Range Bottom
$95.54
Range Top
50
Trading Days in Range
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.
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 29.12.2025 | $1.681 |
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 12 positive, 6 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
Benzinga · 10.9.2026
Benzinga · 7.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 2.9.2026
Zacks · 2.9.2026
Zacks · 28.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 27.8.2026
Yahoo · 27.8.2026
Zacks · 27.8.2026
Benzinga · 26.8.2026
Benzinga · 19.8.2026
Zacks · 13.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 8.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 4.8.2026
MarketBeat · 3.8.2026
etf.com · 25.6.2026
Zacks · 22.6.2026
Zacks · 18.6.2026
Zacks · 17.6.2026
StockIQ doesn't currently have enough real data to compute a reliable score for Roundhill Generative AI & Technology ETF (CHAT) — 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 CHAT 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.
CHAT's technical score is 72/100, 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; MACD histogram is positive — rising momentum.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: -7.2% over the last 3 months relative to the index; CMF 20 days: -0.10.
Yes — CHAT has a real recorded dividend payment history on StockIQ. See the Dividends section on this page for the actual per-share amounts and dates.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 0 filings.
No recent insider transaction filings found for this stock.
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
207,445 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 182,726 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
57.5% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 29.5% 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