Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Technology · ·
$8.17
▲ $0.44 (+5.7%)
Market data updated: 09/21 07:54 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/21/2026
News analyzed: 09/21/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
$7.68 - $8.22
52-Week Range
$5.85 - $13.74
Beta
—
Next Earnings
17.11.2026
Support
$7.52
Resistance
$10.64
CRNC is a stock from the Technology sector — Software, hardware, chip, and computing-services companies — revenue tied to the pace of innovation and upgrade cycles.
-34.6% (1Y)
Strengths: 7/30 factors positiveRisk: High
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
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $9.70 vs. price $8.17 (+18.7%)
Fair Value
Biggest negative driver
Operating margin
Operating margin: -0.9% (negative)
Fundamental
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
47
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
68
Quality
42
Value
62
Momentum
21
Risk
40
Sentiment
92
Fundamental
35
Institutional
0
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 Cerence Inc. focuses on financial management and strategic technology deployments. The company announced a $10 million repurchase of its
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Cerence Inc.. News trend score: 92. Reason: 9 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
14
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
44
Psychology
50
Fundamentals
35
Technical
21
Valuation
62
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
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.
Price (3M)
-19%
Market Narrative
46
Fundamental Reality
44
Narrative Gap
+2
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s dominant **loss aversion** reflects a 19.6% drop over three months, where investors appear reluctant to engage despite low volume. **Confirmation bias** and **herding** emerge as secondary forces, with the stock lagging peers and narrative-reality gaps reinforcing selective attention to positive signals. The **euphoria** and **FOMO** signals are muted by valuation disconnects and neutral RSI, suggesting cautious optimism. The key question: *Will the narrative gap (+16) sustain investor focus, or will the 3-month underperformance trigger deeper risk aversion?*
Updated: 09/09/2026, 12:24 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Cerence entered into privately negotiated transactions with certain holders of its 1.50% Convertible Senior Notes Due 2028, repurchasing $10 million aggregate."
"Advanced Smart Mobility is deploying Cerence Emergency Vehicle Detection (EVD) within its autonomous bus platform across Japan."
"Does SOUN's stronger growth outlook make it a better voice AI bet than cash-generating CRNC?"
📈 4D 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
Charles Mackay — 79/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jesse Livermore — 12/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Based on the documented principles, the model estimates that the majority of historical methodologies assign modest to low scores to CRNC, reflecting a generally cautious stance. Investors focused on market cycles and crowd sentiment, such as Charles Mackay and Howard Marks (Market Cycle), rate the stock more favorably, noting the absence of mania and an early‑to‑mid cycle position. In contrast, value‑oriented frameworks like Graham’s defensive and enterprising criteria, Fisher’s growth quality test, and Livermore’s trend rule assign low scores, citing over‑priced expectations, insufficient quality signals, and a negative price trend. This spread illustrates how differing emphases—cycle timing and sentiment versus intrinsic valuation and safety margins—lead to divergent conclusions about the stock’s attractiveness.
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 79
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 73
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 65
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 58
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 49
Adequate but not exceptional liquidity
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 49
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 48
Mixed — growth exists but the price already reflects much of it
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 47
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
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
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 40
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 33
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 31
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 27
Risk profile Loeb would flag as a real threat to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🔴 13
Doesn't show the stability Smith's long-term case requires
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 12
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 281 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (0 bullish · 7 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
72.7%
Operating Margin
-0.9%
Net Margin
-7.4%
EBITDA Margin
3.3%
ROE
-12.4%
ROA
-3.0%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$0.43
Cash
—
Total Debt
$199.69M
Current Ratio
1.89
Debt/Equity
1.33
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$8.17
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$9.70
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
+18.7%
🟢 Appears cheap 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% | $44.48M | $40.80M |
| 2 | -3.1% | $43.09M | $36.26M |
| 3 | -1.2% | $42.55M | $32.85M |
| 4 | 0.6% | $42.81M | $30.33M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $43.88M | $28.52M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$46.82M
Terminal Value
$692.02M
Present Value of Terminal Value
$449.76M
Enterprise Value
$618.54M
Net Debt
$199.69M
Equity Value
$418.85M
*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
$3.49
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$3.44
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 9 positive, 9 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Zacks · 11.9.2026
MT Newswires · 26.8.2026
Yahoo · 26.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 26.8.2026
Benzinga · 26.8.2026
Yahoo · 25.8.2026
Zacks · 25.8.2026
Yahoo · 25.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 25.8.2026
Benzinga · 25.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 21.8.2026
24/7 Wall St. · 14.8.2026
Motley Fool · 13.8.2026
Zacks · 13.8.2026
Zacks · 7.8.2026
Zacks · 7.8.2026
Moby · 7.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 7.8.2026
Cerence Inc. (CRNC) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 47/100, 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.
CRNC currently scores 47/100 (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, CRNC's estimated fair value is $9.70, which is 18.7% above the current price of $8.17. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
CRNC's technical score is 21/100, 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: Estimated fair value: $9.70 vs. price $8.17 (+18.7%); Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 97.0%; Free cash flow growth: 283.7%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Operating margin: -0.9% (negative); Net margin: -7.4% (negative); Operating margin is eroding over time.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for CRNC.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 2 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Salinas Jennifer | Open Market Sale | 10.8.2026 | 25,998 | -25,998 | $8.83 |
| Salinas Jennifer | Open Market Sale | 10.8.2026 | 694,029 | -25,998 | $8.83 |
| Klevorn Marcy S | Grant/Award from Employer | 12.2.2026 | 12,968 | +12,968 | $0.01 |
| DAVIS DOUGLAS LEE | Grant/Award from Employer | 12.2.2026 | 12,968 | +12,968 | $0.01 |
| Harris Marion | Grant/Award from Employer | 12.2.2026 | 12,968 | +12,968 | $0.01 |
| Budnik Marianne | Grant/Award from Employer | 12.2.2026 | 12,968 | +12,968 | $0.01 |
| Matus Kristi Ann | Grant/Award from Employer | 12.2.2026 | 12,968 | +12,968 | $0.01 |
| Budnik Marianne | Grant/Award from Employer | 12.2.2026 | 60,166 | +12,968 | $0.01 |
| Matus Kristi Ann | Grant/Award from Employer | 12.2.2026 | 54,737 | +12,968 | $0.01 |
| Klevorn Marcy S | Grant/Award from Employer | 12.2.2026 | 35,404 | +12,968 | $0.01 |
| Harris Marion | Grant/Award from Employer | 12.2.2026 | 27,178 | +12,968 | $0.01 |
| DAVIS DOUGLAS LEE | Grant/Award from Employer | 12.2.2026 | 39,544 | +12,968 | $0.01 |
| Krzanich Brian M | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.1.2026 | 263,338 | +263,338 | $12.35 |
| Rodriquez Antonio | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.1.2026 | 131,694 | +131,694 | $12.35 |
| Salinas Jennifer | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.1.2026 | 131,694 | +131,694 | $12.35 |
| Mentz Christian | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.1.2026 | 131,694 | +131,694 | $12.35 |
| Schanz Nils | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.1.2026 | 87,796 | +87,796 | $12.35 |
| Rodriquez Antonio | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.1.2026 | 575,246 | +131,694 | $12.35 |
| Krzanich Brian M | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.1.2026 | 1,722,091 | +263,338 | $12.35 |
| Salinas Jennifer | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.1.2026 | 720,027 | +131,694 | $12.35 |
| Schanz Nils | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.1.2026 | 342,682 | +87,796 | $12.35 |
| Mentz Christian | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.1.2026 | 293,474 | +131,694 | $12.35 |
| Salinas Jennifer | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.11.2025 | 242,044 | +242,044 | $10.35 |
| Rodriquez Antonio | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.11.2025 | 166,821 | +166,821 | $10.35 |
| Mentz Christian | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.11.2025 | 49,905 | +49,905 | $10.35 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
6,111,791 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 6,349,131 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
62.8% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 61.4% 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