Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Technology · ·
$2.11
▲ $0.03 (+1.4%)
Market data updated: 09/22 11:12 AM
News analyzed: 09/22/2026
Market Cap
$186.51M
Day Range
$2.08 - $2.13
52-Week Range
$1.85 - $3.29
Beta
—
Next Earnings
09.11.2026
Support
$1.99
Resistance
$2.40
CRNT is a stock from the Technology sector — Software, hardware, chip, and computing-services companies — revenue tied to the pace of innovation and upgrade cycles.
-15.3% (1Y)
⚠️ Insufficient data for a reliable StockIQ Score
Only 3 of 7 categories available — Fundamental, Growth, Valuation, Quality unavailable.
Strengths: 5/13 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
🟡 Mixed
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
MACD
MACD histogram is positive — rising momentum
Technical
Biggest negative driver
Calmar Ratio (return vs. drawdown)
Calmar: 0.04 (3y annualized return 2.7% / max drawdown 66.4%)
Risk
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
60
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
49
Risk
42
Sentiment
98
Fundamental
No data available
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 Ceragon Networks Ltd. has centered on its strong Q2 2026 financial performance, highlighting record bookings, strategic growth initiatives, and positive analyst sentiment. Analysts reiterated bullish outlooks, with Needham maintaining a Buy rating and $3 price target, while earnings calls emphasized demand-driven momentum. The company’s participation in investor conferences further underscored its focus on expanding market presence.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Ceragon Networks Ltd.. News trend score: 98. Reason: 9 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 1 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
21
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
56
Fundamentals
—
Technical
49
Valuation
—
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
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.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Price (3M)
-20%
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
The dominant Loss Aversion state (78) reflects a market deeply anchored to recent declines, with traders hesitant to accept further losses despite muted selling pressure. The anchoring score (24) hints at traders focusing on the 3.8% support level, while the narrative-reality gap (13) suggests perceptions of recovery may outpace tangible progress. The absence of panic or euphoria signals cautious positioning, but the 3-month drop (-26.6%) remains the psychological fulcrum. The key question: Will traders break free from loss aversion, or will the gap widen as sentiment diverges from fundamentals?
Updated: 09/06/2026, 02:57 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Record Bookings and Strategic Partnerships"
"Needham reiterates Buy with $3 price target"
"Ceragon shares gain 4% after second-quarter earnings beat"
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
Charles Mackay — 71/100
🔴 Weakest match
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — 18/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide among historical methodologies, with stark contrasts between cautious optimism and outright red flags. Charles Mackay’s high score suggests no obvious crowd-driven mania, while mid-cycle signals from Howard Marks and Samuel Nelson imply a neutral stance—neither a buy nor a sell. However, the majority of value-oriented investors like Benjamin Graham, Philip Fisher, and even Howard Marks (in his broader framework) are stymied by insufficient data, leaving them unable to form a definitive verdict. On the other end of the spectrum, Thorstein Veblen’s low score flags the stock as a speculative growth play, while Jesse Livermore and Morgan Housel warn of negative trends and volatility that would test even the most patient investors. The divergence reflects a clash between those who see stability in market cycles and those who detect speculative excess or structural risks.
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 71
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)
🟢 68
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
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%
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 50
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)
🟡 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%
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%
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
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 39
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 29
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 23
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 20
Pattern Veblen would flag as growth pursued for its own sake
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🔴 18
Cycle looks stretched toward overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🔴 15
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 283 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟡 Indicators are mixed — no clear bias (5 bullish · 5 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 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.
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 9 positive, 10 neutral, 1 negative out of the last 20 articles.
PR Newswire · 26.8.2026
Benzinga · 25.8.2026
MoneyShow · 20.8.2026
Motley Fool · 19.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 14.8.2026
Benzinga · 12.8.2026
GuruFocus.com · 11.8.2026
Moby · 11.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 11.8.2026
MarketBeat · 11.8.2026
InvestorsHub · 11.8.2026
Associated Press · 11.8.2026
PR Newswire · 11.8.2026
Benzinga · 11.8.2026
Benzinga · 11.8.2026
Benzinga · 11.8.2026
Zacks · 6.8.2026
PR Newswire · 29.7.2026
MT Newswires · 28.7.2026
PR Newswire · 28.7.2026
StockIQ doesn't currently have enough real data to compute a reliable score for Ceragon Networks Ltd. (CRNT) — 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 CRNT 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.
CRNT's technical score is 49/100, 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: MACD histogram is positive — rising momentum; RSI 51.1 — healthy positive momentum; Price is above the SAR point — uptrend.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Calmar: 0.04 (3y annualized return 2.7% / max drawdown 66.4%); Price is below the 50-day average; Price is below the 200-day average.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for CRNT.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Makov Efrat | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 12.6.2026 | 5,000 | +5,000 | $1.99 |
| Makov Efrat | Open Market Sale | 12.6.2026 | 5,000 | -5,000 | $2.99 |
| Makov Efrat | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 12.6.2026 | 5,000 | -5,000 | — |
| Makov Efrat | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 12.6.2026 | 63,950 | +5,000 | $1.99 |
| Makov Efrat | Open Market Sale | 12.6.2026 | 58,950 | -5,000 | $2.99 |
| Makov Efrat | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 12.6.2026 | 11,666 | -5,000 | — |
| Arazi Doron Ovadia | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 66,667 | +66,667 | — |
| Arazi Doron Ovadia | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 133,333 | +133,333 | — |
| Arazi Doron Ovadia | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 375,001 | +66,667 | — |
| Arazi Doron Ovadia | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 133,333 | +133,333 | — |
| Shaham Yael | Grant/Award from Employer | 23.5.2026 | 29,500 | +29,500 | — |
| Shaham Yael | Grant/Award from Employer | 23.5.2026 | 14,750 | +14,750 | — |
| Liran Shlomo | Grant/Award from Employer | 23.5.2026 | 29,500 | +29,500 | — |
| Ripstein David | Grant/Award from Employer | 23.5.2026 | 29,500 | +29,500 | — |
| Makov Efrat | Grant/Award from Employer | 23.5.2026 | 29,500 | +29,500 | — |
| Liran Shlomo | Grant/Award from Employer | 23.5.2026 | 14,750 | +14,750 | — |
| WADSWORTH ROBERT M | Grant/Award from Employer | 23.5.2026 | 14,100 | +14,100 | — |
| WADSWORTH ROBERT M | Grant/Award from Employer | 23.5.2026 | 28,200 | +28,200 | — |
| Ripstein David | Grant/Award from Employer | 23.5.2026 | 14,750 | +14,750 | — |
| Hadar Rami | Grant/Award from Employer | 23.5.2026 | 29,500 | +29,500 | — |
| Hadar Rami | Grant/Award from Employer | 23.5.2026 | 14,750 | +14,750 | — |
| Makov Efrat | Grant/Award from Employer | 23.5.2026 | 14,750 | +14,750 | — |
| Rosen Ilan | Grant/Award from Employer | 23.5.2026 | 44,240 | +44,240 | — |
| Rosen Ilan | Grant/Award from Employer | 23.5.2026 | 22,120 | +22,120 | — |
| Shaham Yael | Grant/Award from Employer | 23.5.2026 | 58,950 | +14,750 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
545,918 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 680,981 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
50.2% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 46.3% 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