Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$2.75
▼ $0.03 (-1.1%)
Market data updated: 09/24 11:53 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/24/2026
News analyzed: 09/24/2026
Market Cap
$599.22M
Day Range
$2.68 - $2.78
52-Week Range
$2.33 - $8.21
Beta
—
Next Earnings
04.11.2026
Support
$2.66
Resistance
$3.88
CTMX 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.
+14.1% (1Y)
Strengths: 4/25 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
🔴 Bearish
Technical Trend
🔴 Bearish
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Operating margin stability
Operating margin is stable or improving over time
Quality
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: -$14.02 vs. price $2.75 (-609.9%)
Fair Value
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
35
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
43
Quality
58
Value
38
Momentum
13
Risk
40
Sentiment
62
Fundamental
30
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 CytomX Therapeutics has centered on its Varseta-M (varsetatug masetecan), which received FDA Fast Track Designation for treating relapsed/refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (R/R mCRC) in August 2026, following promising Phase 1 data. The company is planning a potential monotherapy registrational study in early 2027. Additionally, analysts like Guggenheim and JP Morgan maintained optimistic outlooks on CTMX, citing its Probody platform and expanded collaboration with Regeneron, despite revenue declines and safety considerations noted in Q2 earnings. Upcoming investor conferences in September further highlight its focus on investor relations.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about CytomX Therapeutics, Inc.. News trend score: 62. Reason: 6 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 4 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
36
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
37
Psychology
44
Fundamentals
30
Technical
13
Valuation
38
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
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.
Price (3M)
-19%
Market Narrative
37
Fundamental Reality
37
Narrative Gap
+0
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
Market behavior suggests FOMO dominates as momentum (+3.9% ROC), volume (1.48x avg), and positive sentiment (74/100) align, despite moderate RSI (62). The narrative gap (+21) and confirmation bias (27) imply investors prioritize optimistic framing over deteriorating fundamentals (revenue -0.4%, margin -0.5pp). Herding is muted by relative underperformance, while overconfidence persists due to price momentum outpacing growth. The key question: *Will momentum sustain despite widening narrative-reality disconnect?*
Updated: 09/09/2026, 02:27 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"FDA Fast Track Designation for Varseta-M for Relapsed/Refractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer (R/R mCRC)"
"JP Morgan maintains Overweight on CytomX Therapeutics, Guggenheim maintains Buy"
"Q2 earnings call highlights advancing Varseta-M into combination regimens and additional gastrointestinal cancers"
📈 3D 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
Walter Bagehot — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jesse Livermore — 16/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock divides methodologies sharply, with Walter Bagehot’s near-perfect score and bullish verdict standing in stark contrast to the overwhelmingly negative assessments from the rest. Bagehot’s focus on liquidity and resilience in crises likely sees strength in the company’s ability to weather downturns, while the majority—including Graham, Fisher, and Schwager—flag structural weaknesses, whether in valuation, growth quality, or market positioning. Marks and Mackay offer cautious middle-ground views, hinting at potential but tempered by concerns over overvaluation or speculative momentum. Meanwhile, the lowest scorers like Veblen and Nelson warn of speculative excess or stretched cycles, suggesting a disconnect between the stock’s fundamentals and its perceived appeal.
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 95
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 94
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 (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 89
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
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
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 65
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
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)
🟡 43
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 35%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 40
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
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)
🟡 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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 38
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 30%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 32
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 31
Weak case — Malkiel/Bogle would say a low-cost index is the simpler bet
Key question
Do I actually have an edge here, or do I just think I do?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🔴 30
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 21
Pattern Veblen would flag as growth pursued for its own sake
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 16
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 286 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (0 bullish · 10 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.
Medium 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
-29.3%
Net Margin
-22.8%
EBITDA Margin
-29.3%
ROE
-17.5%
ROA
-11.5%
ROIC
—
EPS
—
Cash
$12.67M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
3.09
Debt/Equity
—
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$2.75
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$14.02
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-609.9%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
25.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 25.0% | $-94.76M | $-86.93M |
| 2 | 19.4% | $-113.12M | $-95.21M |
| 3 | 13.8% | $-128.67M | $-99.36M |
| 4 | 8.1% | $-139.13M | $-98.56M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-142.60M | $-92.68M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-75.81M
Terminal Value
$-2.25B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-1.46B
Enterprise Value
$-1.93B
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$-1.93B
*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
$0.72
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$0.71
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 6 positive, 10 neutral, 4 negative out of the last 20 articles.
SeekingAlpha · 14.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 1.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 1.9.2026
MT Newswires · 27.8.2026
Yahoo · 27.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 27.8.2026
Benzinga · 13.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 12.8.2026
Benzinga · 10.8.2026
GuruFocus.com · 7.8.2026
Yahoo · 7.8.2026
MarketBeat · 7.8.2026
Yahoo · 7.8.2026
ChartMill · 7.8.2026
Zacks · 6.8.2026
Yahoo · 6.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 6.8.2026
Associated Press · 6.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 6.8.2026
CytomX Therapeutics, Inc. (CTMX) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 35/100, rated "Weak". The score is a weighted average across up to 7 categories (technical, fundamental, growth, fair value, news, quality, risk), based on real data only.
CTMX currently scores 35/100 (Weak) 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, CTMX's estimated fair value is -$14.02, which is 609.9% below the current price of $2.75. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
CTMX's technical score is 13/100, 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: Operating margin is stable or improving over time; Current ratio: 3.09; Free cash flow growth: 12.4%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: -$14.02 vs. price $2.75 (-609.9%); Operating margin: -29.3% (negative); Net margin: -22.8% (negative).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for CTMX.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 5 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carvajal Alejandra | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 450,000 | +450,000 | — |
| Carvajal Alejandra | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 100,000 | +100,000 | — |
| Carvajal Alejandra | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 100,000 | +100,000 | — |
| Carvajal Alejandra | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 450,000 | +450,000 | — |
| Fuchs Charles S. | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.7.2026 | 118,000 | +118,000 | — |
| Fuchs Charles S. | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.7.2026 | 118,000 | +118,000 | — |
| Su Zhen | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.6.2026 | 59,000 | +59,000 | — |
| Ashworth Alan | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.6.2026 | 59,000 | +59,000 | — |
| Jones Elaine V | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.6.2026 | 59,000 | +59,000 | — |
| Meyers James R | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.6.2026 | 59,000 | +59,000 | — |
| Mohindru Mani | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.6.2026 | 59,000 | +59,000 | — |
| Gilbert Halley E | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.6.2026 | 59,000 | +59,000 | — |
| Young Matthew P. | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.6.2026 | 59,000 | +59,000 | — |
| Jones Elaine V | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.6.2026 | 59,000 | +59,000 | — |
| Meyers James R | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.6.2026 | 59,000 | +59,000 | — |
| Ashworth Alan | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.6.2026 | 59,000 | +59,000 | — |
| Gilbert Halley E | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.6.2026 | 59,000 | +59,000 | — |
| Mohindru Mani | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.6.2026 | 59,000 | +59,000 | — |
| Young Matthew P. | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.6.2026 | 59,000 | +59,000 | — |
| Su Zhen | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.6.2026 | 59,000 | +59,000 | — |
| Ogden Christopher | Open Market Sale | 15.6.2026 | 1,624 | -1,624 | $3.05 |
| Ogden Christopher | Open Market Sale | 15.6.2026 | 295,324 | -1,624 | $3.05 |
| Chu Yu-Waye | Open Market Sale | 17.3.2026 | 21,279 | -21,279 | $6.42 |
| McCarthy Sean A. | Open Market Sale | 17.3.2026 | 118,969 | -118,969 | $6.42 |
| Ogden Christopher | Open Market Sale | 17.3.2026 | 19,323 | -19,323 | $6.42 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
38,639,220 shares short as of 2026-09-15 · vs. 33,512,293 on 2026-08-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
80.4% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 68.9% 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