Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$12.56
▲ $0.01 (+0.1%)
Market data updated: 09/20 03:38 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/13/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
$12.26 - $12.61
52-Week Range
$5.74 - $26.95
Beta
—
Next Earnings
02.11.2026
Support
$12.18
Resistance
$16.20
CRVS is a stock from the Healthcare sector — Pharmaceuticals, biotech, medical devices, and health insurance — less sensitive to economic cycles, but exposed to regulation and FDA approvals.
+105.2% (1Y)
Strengths: 8/24 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
🔴 Bearish
Insiders
🟢 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: 48.0%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: -$7.71 vs. price $12.56 (-161.4%)
Fair Value
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (66/100), 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.
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
48
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
66
Quality
55
Value
38
Momentum
26
Risk
54
Sentiment
74
Fundamental
50
Institutional
100
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 Corvus Pharmaceuticals has centered on its lead drug, **soquelitinib**, particularly its promising Phase 1/1b trial results in **T-cell lymphoma** and **atopic dermatitis**, which have driven investor interest and stock rallies. The company highlighted final Phase 1 lymphoma data published in *Blood*, strong interim efficacy signals in atopic dermatitis, and a substantial cash position extending into 2028. Analysts emphasized upcoming milestones, including Q1 2027 futility analyses and potential market expansion for soquelitinib.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.. News trend score: 74. Reason: 6 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
33
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
52
Psychology
39
Fundamentals
50
Technical
26
Valuation
38
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
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.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price (3M)
+5%
Market Narrative
42
Fundamental Reality
52
Narrative Gap
-10
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant herding behavior reflects a market where CRVS is moving in lockstep with peers, consistent with passive or index-driven participation. Low FOMO/Panic scores suggest neither urgency nor panic, while neutral RSI and sentiment imply a balanced, non-extreme mindset. The narrow narrative gap (-4) hints at modest misalignment between market perception and fundamentals, but no clear behavioral bias dominates beyond herd alignment. The key question is whether this synchronized movement persists or if divergence emerges from sector-specific catalysts.
Updated: 09/04/2026, 11:05 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Corvus Pharmaceuticals has delivered strong soquelitinib data in atopic dermatitis, driving a significant market rally"
"Announces Publication in *Blood* of Final Phase 1 Data from the Soquelitinib Phase 1/1b T Cell Lymphoma Trial"
"$215M cash to Q2 2028"
"Corvus Pharmaceuticals to Present at the 2026 Cantor Global Healthcare Conference"
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
Peter Lynch — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jesse Livermore — 17/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for CRVS reflects deep methodological contrasts between growth-focused and defensive/value-oriented investors. Lynch and Bagehot’s near-perfect scores highlight contrasting priorities—Lynch’s hesitation stems from insufficient growth data, while Bagehot’s confidence hinges on liquidity resilience during crises. Meanwhile, cyclical and trend-following methodologies like Nelson’s and Livermore’s diverge sharply: Nelson sees a favorable cycle position, while Livermore’s negative trend verdict aligns with his strict adherence to downtrends. Value investors like Graham and Loeb dismiss the stock outright, citing risk or valuation gaps, whereas Fisher and Smith’s low scores stem from data limitations rather than outright rejection. The efficient-market camp and Schwager’s disciplined wizards both reject it outright, framing it as either overpriced or lacking a clear setup, while Housel’s zero score underscores its volatility—highlighting how patient, long-term thinkers might avoid it entirely.
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 100
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 35%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 100
Strong liquidity — would likely survive a real credit squeeze
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 95
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 86
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
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 70
Risk appears reasonably priced — no obvious cycle-timing red flag
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 69
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 60
Mixed — doesn't clearly pass Graham's tests
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 58
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 57
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 53
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: 45%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
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%
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 45
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 17
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 280 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (1 bullish · 8 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.
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
—
Operating Margin
—
Net Margin
—
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
-25.0%
ROA
-21.5%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$0.19
Cash
$4.58M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
6.21
Debt/Equity
0.00
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$12.56
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$7.71
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-161.4%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
10.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 10.0% | $-36.27M | $-33.27M |
| 2 | 8.1% | $-39.21M | $-33.01M |
| 3 | 6.3% | $-41.67M | $-32.17M |
| 4 | 4.4% | $-43.49M | $-30.81M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-44.58M | $-28.97M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-32.97M
Terminal Value
$-702.93M
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-456.85M
Enterprise Value
$-615.09M
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$-615.09M
*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
$0.82
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$1.21
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 6 positive, 12 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 3.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 27.8.2026
Yahoo · 27.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 27.8.2026
Insider Monkey · 17.8.2026
Motley Fool · 14.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 12.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 10.8.2026
GuruFocus.com · 7.8.2026
Moby · 7.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 7.8.2026
MarketBeat · 7.8.2026
Associated Press · 6.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 6.8.2026
ChartMill · 6.8.2026
Benzinga · 6.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 30.7.2026
Motley Fool · 23.6.2026
Simply Wall St. · 14.6.2026
Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (CRVS) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 48/100, 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.
CRVS currently scores 48/100 (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, CRVS's estimated fair value is -$7.71, which is 161.4% below the current price of $12.56. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
CRVS's technical score is 26/100, 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: Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 48.0%; Net income growth: 75.5%; Debt/equity: 0.00.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: -$7.71 vs. price $12.56 (-161.4%); ATR: 5.3% of price; Return on equity (ROE): -25.0% (negative).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for CRVS.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 6 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CLARK IAN T | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 15,000 | +15,000 | — |
| Moore David Scott | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 15,000 | +15,000 | — |
| Thompson Peter A. | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 15,000 | +15,000 | — |
| Grais Linda | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 15,000 | +15,000 | — |
| van den Broek Richard | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 15,000 | +15,000 | — |
| Moore David Scott | Open Market Purchase | 11.6.2026 | 21,700 | +21,700 | $11.53 |
| CLARK IAN T | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 15,000 | +15,000 | — |
| Thompson Peter A. | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 15,000 | +15,000 | — |
| Grais Linda | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 15,000 | +15,000 | — |
| van den Broek Richard | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 15,000 | +15,000 | — |
| Moore David Scott | Open Market Purchase | 11.6.2026 | 21,700 | +21,700 | $11.53 |
| Moore David Scott | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 15,000 | +15,000 | — |
| MILLER RICHARD A MD | Open Market Purchase | 18.5.2026 | 5,000 | +5,000 | $12.05 |
| MILLER RICHARD A MD | Open Market Purchase | 18.5.2026 | 1,932 | +1,932 | $12.01 |
| MILLER RICHARD A MD | Open Market Purchase | 18.5.2026 | 1,193,103 | +5,000 | $12.05 |
| MILLER RICHARD A MD | Open Market Purchase | 18.5.2026 | 1,195,035 | +1,932 | $12.01 |
| Chan Andrew C. | Grant/Award from Employer | 23.4.2026 | 30,000 | +30,000 | — |
| Chan Andrew C. | Grant/Award from Employer | 23.4.2026 | 30,000 | +30,000 | — |
| Thompson Peter A. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 28.1.2026 | 15,000 | -15,000 | — |
| Thompson Peter A. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 28.1.2026 | 15,000 | -15,000 | — |
| Thompson Peter A. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 28.1.2026 | 15,000 | -15,000 | — |
| Thompson Peter A. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 28.1.2026 | 15,000 | -15,000 | — |
| Thompson Peter A. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 28.1.2026 | 15,000 | -15,000 | — |
| Thompson Peter A. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 28.1.2026 | 30,000 | -30,000 | — |
| Thompson Peter A. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 28.1.2026 | 15,000 | +15,000 | $3.27 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
19,017,840 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 18,310,256 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
66.0% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 45.0% 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