Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Industrials · ·
$153.39
▼ $0.08 (-0.1%)
Market data updated: 09/17 01:51 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/17/2026
News analyzed: 09/17/2026
Market Cap
$17.92B
Day Range
$152.45 - $154.70
52-Week Range
$123.64 - $210.33
Beta
—
Next Earnings
27.10.2026
CHRW is a stock from the Industrials sector — Manufacturing, aerospace, defense, and infrastructure — closely tied to capital-investment cycles and economic growth.
+14.7% (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
🟢 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: 25.1%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $89.67 vs. price $153.39 (-41.5%)
Fair Value
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (68/100), but fair-value analysis scores this stock as relatively expensive (38/100) — the growth story and the current price aren't fully aligned.
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
66/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
86/100
Analog Quality
-3.8%
Median 40D Outcome
70/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
47%
+3.4% … +6.9%
🟡 Base
20%
-0.8% … -0.4%
🔴 Bearish
33%
-7.3% … -5.9%
📌 Bottom line: Out of 15 similar historical cases for this stock, 47% (95% CI 25%–70%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of -0.1%.
Echo #1 — Momentum Breakout
1 occurrence(s) · 100% historical success
Echo #2 — Trend Acceleration
1 occurrence(s) · 0% 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 | 47% (25%–70%) | +0.5% | -0.6% … +4.1% | +0.4% |
| 10D | 53% (30%–75%) | +1.7% | -1.7% … +5.0% | +0.6% |
| 20D | 47% (25%–70%) | -0.1% | -5.9% … +4.9% | +0.9% |
| 40D | 40% (20%–64%) | -3.8% | -9.6% … +5.2% | +1.0% |
| 60D | 40% (20%–64%) | +0.6% | -3.5% … +5.3% | +0.7% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-11-01 | 66/100 | ✓ Downtrend | +2.4% | -1.3% |
| 2023-01-25 | 66/100 | Consolidation | +4.2% | +0.6% |
| 2018-11-16 | 66/100 | Consolidation | -6.4% | +0.7% |
| 2024-03-14 | 65/100 | Downtrend | -5.9% | +14.3% |
| 2023-02-08 | 65/100 | Consolidation | -0.1% | +1.0% |
| 2022-12-01 | 64/100 | Consolidation | -7.3% | +0.6% |
| 2019-01-15 | 64/100 | ✓ Downtrend | +6.7% | +5.2% |
| 2025-03-10 | 64/100 | Consolidation | -12.2% | -5.3% |
| 2020-03-31 | 64/100 | High Volatility | +7.6% | +16.8% |
| 2021-03-04 | 64/100 | Consolidation | +5.6% | +5.5% |
| 2020-12-01 | 63/100 | Consolidation | -0.8% | -1.7% |
| 2026-04-14 | 63/100 | Consolidation | -0.8% | +14.8% |
| 2026-06-02 | 63/100 | Uptrend | +7.1% | -15.3% |
| 2023-12-08 | 61/100 | Consolidation | +2.5% | -14.1% |
| 2026-04-29 | 61/100 | Uptrend | -5.9% | -6.4% |
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 XLI (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
59
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
50
$141.63
Now
59
$153.39
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
68
Quality
58
Value
38
Momentum
54
Risk
56
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
56
Institutional
No data available
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
Not enough comparably-scored stocks yet to show similar matches.
SCANNING CHRW...
Recent media coverage of C.H. Robinson has primarily focused on its stock performance and investor sentiment, with Citigroup upgrading the company’s rating to "Buy" and adjusting its price target upward, driving a 1.5% premarket share rise. The company was also recognized by *Forbes* as one of America’s Best Employers for Tech Workers, highlighting its talent appeal. Additionally, investor conferences and speculative trading activity were noted, though no major corporate announcements were reported.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about C.H. Robinson. News trend score: 100. Reason: 11 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
30
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
40
Psychology
51
Fundamentals
56
Technical
54
Valuation
38
Price, sentiment, and valuation keep confirming each other upward while the actual fundamentals deteriorate.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
Price (3M)
-17%
Market Narrative
79
Fundamental Reality
40
Narrative Gap
+39
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant **Loss Aversion** (56) reflects a market behavior consistent with lingering reluctance to exit a stock that has underperformed (-19.8% over three months), despite modest volume. The **Overconfidence** (48) and **Euphoria** (23) scores suggest some investors may still overweight the stock’s valuation premium (+67% vs. DCF) or momentum, but these are tempered by weak fundamentals. The **Confirmation Bias** (31) and **Narrative Gap** (+24) indicate investors may be selectively focusing on positive narratives while ignoring stagnant revenue. The key open question is whether the market will eventually accept the valuation disconnect or if a shift in sentiment could trigger a re-evaluation of the stock’s fundamentals.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 12:04 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Citigroup Upgrades C.H. Robinson Worldwide to Buy From Neutral, Adjusts PT to $185 From $196"
"C.H. Robinson Shares Rise 1.5% Premarket Without New Company Announcement"
"Forbes names C.H. Robinson one of America’s Best Employers for Tech Workers"
"C.H. Robinson to Participate in Upcoming Investor Conferences"
📈 11D 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
Thorstein Veblen — 80/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham — 15/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock’s starkly divided verdicts reflect deep methodological disagreements about valuation, market psychology, and growth potential. Howard Marks’ *Market Cycle* approach sees it as early-to-mid cycle, scoring near-perfectly, while his *core* framework (57) flags potential overvaluation, illustrating how even the same investor’s principles can clash depending on context. Meanwhile, value-focused methodologies like Graham’s (15) and Fisher’s (48) dismiss it outright—Graham’s strict criteria reject it entirely, while Fisher’s growth-centric lens finds no standout quality. Contrastingly, behavioral and cyclical thinkers (Mackay, Veblen, Schwager) score it moderately high, suggesting crowd behavior isn’t driving the price or that growth aligns with fundamentals. The divide between high-scoring cyclical/growth models and low-scoring value/defensive ones underscores whether CHRW is a speculative play (favored by Marks’ cycle or Schwager’s disciplined setups) or a fundamentally flawed bet (rejected by Graham’s margin-of-safety rules).
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟢 80
Growth appears aligned with real value creation
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 66
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 64
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)
🟡 64
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 61
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 57
Mixed — growth exists but the price already reflects much of it
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 52
Adequate but not exceptional liquidity
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 52
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 49
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
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 44
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 37
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🔴 32
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
🔴 22
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)
🔴 15
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
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 an uptrend (5 bullish · 3 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.
Low 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
16.8%
Operating Margin
4.9%
Net Margin
3.6%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
31.8%
ROA
11.6%
ROIC
—
EPS
$4.88
Cash
$160.87M
Total Debt
$1.09B
Current Ratio
1.53
Debt/Equity
0.59
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 4.9.2026 | $0.630 |
| 5.6.2026 | $0.630 |
| 4.6.2026 | $0.630 |
| 6.3.2026 | $0.630 |
| 5.3.2026 | $0.630 |
| 5.12.2025 | $0.630 |
| 4.12.2025 | $0.630 |
| 5.9.2025 | $0.620 |
| 4.9.2025 | $0.620 |
| 6.6.2025 | $0.620 |
| 5.6.2025 | $0.620 |
| 7.3.2025 | $0.620 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$153.39
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$89.67
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-41.5%
🔴 Appears expensive 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% | $850.15M | $779.95M |
| 2 | -3.1% | $823.58M | $693.19M |
| 3 | -1.2% | $813.28M | $628.00M |
| 4 | 0.6% | $818.37M | $579.75M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $838.83M | $545.18M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$894.89M
Terminal Value
$13.23B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$8.60B
Enterprise Value
$11.82B
Net Debt
$928.57M
Equity Value
$10.89B
*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
$15.58
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$14.67
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 11 positive, 7 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Trefis · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
StockStory · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
Trefis · 9.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
FreightWaves · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
FreightWaves · 8.9.2026
MT Newswires · 8.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 8.9.2026
Benzinga · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
C.H. Robinson (CHRW) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 59/100, 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.
CHRW currently scores 59/100 (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, CHRW's estimated fair value is $89.67, which is 41.5% below the current price of $153.39. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
CHRW's technical score is 54/100, 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: 25.1%; Free cash flow growth: 84.0%; Net income growth: 26.1%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $89.67 vs. price $153.39 (-41.5%); Revenue growth (last year): -8.4%; Price is below the 50-day average.
Yes — CHRW 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 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lee Damon J. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 8.7.2026 | 4,698 | -4,698 | $190.95 |
| Lee Damon J. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 8.7.2026 | 36,736 | -4,698 | $190.95 |
| Gokey Timothy C | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 163 | +163 | $188.34 |
| Goodburn Mark A. | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 193 | +193 | $188.34 |
| Gokey Timothy C | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 26,972 | +163 | $188.34 |
| Goodburn Mark A. | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 13,944 | +193 | $188.34 |
| Bozeman David P | Tax Withholding in Shares | 26.6.2026 | 11,693 | -11,693 | $180.34 |
| RAJAN ARUN | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.5.2026 | 8,714 | +8,714 | — |
| RAJAN ARUN | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.5.2026 | 133,340 | +8,714 | — |
| Feitzinger Edward G. | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.5.2026 | 992 | +992 | — |
| Gokey Timothy C | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.5.2026 | 992 | +992 | — |
| MCGARRY MICHAEL H | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.5.2026 | 992 | +992 | — |
| Goodburn Mark A. | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.5.2026 | 992 | +992 | — |
| GUILFOILE MARY | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.5.2026 | 992 | +992 | — |
| Robbins Paige K | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.5.2026 | 992 | +992 | — |
| Kozlak Jodee A | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.5.2026 | 992 | +992 | — |
| Crawford Kermit R | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.5.2026 | 992 | +992 | — |
| Tolliver Paula | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.5.2026 | 992 | +992 | — |
| Feitzinger Edward G. | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.5.2026 | 2,262 | +992 | — |
| Gokey Timothy C | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.5.2026 | 26,809 | +992 | — |
| Goodburn Mark A. | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.5.2026 | 13,751 | +992 | — |
| GUILFOILE MARY | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.5.2026 | 22,552 | +992 | — |
| MCGARRY MICHAEL H | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.5.2026 | 4,467 | +992 | — |
| Robbins Paige K | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.5.2026 | 4,467 | +992 | — |
| Kozlak Jodee A | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.5.2026 | 29,006 | +992 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
4,665,255 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 5,483,762 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
58.8% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 38.0% 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