Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
· · NASDAQ
$100.30
▼ $0.70 (-0.7%)
Market data updated: 09/17 10:35 AM
News analyzed: 09/17/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
$99.50 - $101.46
52-Week Range
$60.07 - $102.35
Beta
—
Next Earnings
—
+33.0% (1Y)
⚠️ Insufficient data for a reliable StockIQ Score
Only 3 of 7 categories available — Fundamental, Growth, Valuation, Quality unavailable.
Strengths: 10/14 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
Stochastic
%K 86.4 — overbought
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.
CIBR’s overall investor score of 67 reflects a mixed technical and risk profile, tempered by a strong positive sentiment in recent news coverage. The technical category scores 57, driven by positive positioning above both the 50-day and 200-day moving averages, which suggests a bullish structural trend. However, this is offset by weakening momentum indicators—a negative MACD histogram, a 12-day ROC of -1.0%, and an RSI of 48.4—all signaling potential short-term fatigue. The risk category scores 50, with a moderate ATR of 2.9% and a Calmar ratio of 1.16, indicating manageable volatility but a historically significant drawdown (22.3%) relative to its strong 3-year return (26.0%). Meanwhile, the news category scores 100, buoyed by a surge of positive headlines, including analyst previews of record revenue and AI-driven defensive positioning, which could sustain investor confidence despite technical red flags.
The stock sits above key moving averages (50-day and 200-day) but shows weakening momentum (negative MACD, RSI 48.4, and ROC -1.0%), with %K in neutral territory.
While structural strength exists, declining momentum and RSI suggest caution against overconfidence in the current uptrend.
The news category is overwhelmingly positive, with multiple analyst-driven and market-moving headlines highlighting revenue growth, AI defense, and bullish outlooks.
This positive narrative could attract new capital and sustain investor enthusiasm, mitigating some technical concerns.
The ATR (2.9%) indicates moderate volatility, but the Calmar ratio (1.16) reveals a historically high drawdown (22.3%) relative to its 26% annualized return.
The risk-reward balance is skewed toward higher potential returns but with elevated downside risk during pullbacks.
StockIQ conclusion
CIBR’s profile is defined by a strong positive news environment and structural technical support, but technical indicators warn of potential short-term weakness. The risk profile remains balanced, with moderate volatility and historical drawdowns, while the overwhelmingly bullish narrative could offset near-term concerns. However, the stock’s position near Bollinger Band support and declining momentum suggest caution is warranted until clearer signs of momentum recovery emerge.
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
86
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
2d ago · $100.41
Evidence: FOMO score jumped from 10 to 42 day-over-day
What happened after
Still awaiting outcome
🐂🐻 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
88
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 **First Trust Nasdaq Cybersecurity ETF (CIBR)** highlights its strong performance in the cybersecurity sector, with recurring themes of market resilience and AI-driven growth opportunities. Analysts note CIBR’s outperformance over peers, though valuations remain stretched after a 35% rally. Headlines also emphasize broader industry trends, including Palo Alto Networks’ earnings and AI-driven cybersecurity upgrades, as well as CrowdStrike’s strategic partnerships and cloud expansions. The ETF is framed as a key player in the evolving cybersecurity landscape amid shifting tech valuations.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about First Trust Nasdaq Cybersecurity ETF. News trend score: 100. Reason: 12 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 3 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
38
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
59
Fundamentals
—
Technical
88
Valuation
—
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.
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.
Price (3M)
+19%
Market Narrative
66
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
+16
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
CIBR’s psychology score (37) is dominated by **euphoria**, driven by extreme positive sentiment (100/100) and a significant premium (+22.2%) above its 200-day average—despite flat momentum (-1.0% ROC) and neutral RSI (48). This suggests investors may be ignoring technical weakness, focusing instead on narrative-driven optimism. The **narrative gap** (13 points) hints at a disconnect between reality (moderate volatility, muted volume) and overconfident expectations. The key question: *Will sentiment sustain euphoria, or will technical exhaustion trigger a re-evaluation?*
Updated: 09/06/2026, 12:48 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF has outperformed peers in 6 of 8 years, demonstrating resilience and superior risk-adjusted returns."
"AI could drive a $1 trillion cybersecurity upgrade cycle."
"One number buried in the guidance spooked the entire sector."
"solid cybersecurity theme but stretched valuations after a 35% rally."
🧠 Market Brain events driving this
📈 10D 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 — 55/100
🔴 Weakest match
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — 11/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide among methodologies, with only two investors—Edgar Lawrence Smith (100) and Samuel Armstrong Nelson (73)—showing strong signals, while the rest cluster in the mid-to-low 20s or are outright inconclusive. Smith’s near-perfect score reflects his focus on dividend growth, but the lack of data leaves his verdict ambiguous, suggesting his model would *only* consider it if historical payouts were robust. Nelson’s favorable cycle position—closer to oversold than overbought—contrasts sharply with the cautionary tones of most others, particularly those like Livermore (41) and Schwager (24), who flag negative trends or no setup at all. Meanwhile, the mid-tier scores (Mackay at 53, Loeb at 48) hint at moderate excitement or risk, while the efficient-market camp (49) and Marks (34) dismiss it outright, viewing it as either unworthy of active picking or late-cycle. The divergence underscores whether the stock’s momentum or cyclical appeal outweighs its volatility and valuation risks, as seen in the stark contrast between Nelson’s optimism and Marks’ late-cycle warning.
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 100
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 57
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)
🟡 55
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 51
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)
🟡 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%
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 43
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 39
Pattern consistent with a crowd delusion Mackay would flag
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 30
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)
🔴 29
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)
🔴 25
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🔴 11
Cycle looks stretched toward overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 275 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟢 Most indicators support an uptrend (10 bullish · 1 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 uptrend 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.
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 25.6.2026 | $0.072 |
| 26.3.2026 | $0.110 |
| 12.12.2025 | $0.208 |
| 25.9.2025 | $0.001 |
| 26.6.2025 | $0.090 |
| 27.3.2025 | $0.004 |
| 13.12.2024 | $0.081 |
| 26.9.2024 | $0.011 |
| 27.6.2024 | $0.066 |
| 21.3.2024 | $0.024 |
| 22.12.2023 | $0.166 |
| 22.9.2023 | $0.009 |
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 12 positive, 5 neutral, 3 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Benzinga · 15.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 12.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
24/7 Wall St. · 9.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
MarketBeat · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
Benzinga · 2.9.2026
Benzinga · 2.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 1.9.2026
Benzinga · 31.8.2026
Benzinga · 31.8.2026
StockIQ doesn't currently have enough real data to compute a reliable score for First Trust Nasdaq Cybersecurity ETF (CIBR) — 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 CIBR 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.
CIBR's technical score is 88/100, 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: %K 86.4 — overbought.
Yes — CIBR 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.
1,012,339 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 671,526 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
54.3% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 44.1% 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