Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Information Technology · ·
$59.87
▼ $2.01 (-3.2%)
Market data updated: 09/19 05:48 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
$28.37B
Day Range
$59.76 - $61.89
52-Week Range
$37.08 - $87.03
Beta
—
Next Earnings
27.10.2026
Support
$41.58
Resistance
$65.42
CTSH is a stock from the Technology sector — Software, hardware, chip, and computing-services companies — revenue tied to the pace of innovation and upgrade cycles.
-14.5% (1Y)
Strengths: 14/30 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
🟡 Mixed
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $87.06 vs. price $59.87 (+45.4%)
Fair Value
Biggest negative driver
Calmar Ratio (return vs. drawdown)
Calmar: -0.09 (3y annualized return -5.1% / max drawdown 57.3%)
Risk
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
72/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
87/100
Analog Quality
+3.9%
Median 40D Outcome
58/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
53%
+4.4% … +9.3%
🟡 Base
20%
-0.6% … -0.3%
🔴 Bearish
27%
-11.8% … -7.9%
📌 Bottom line: Out of 15 similar historical cases for this stock, 53% (95% CI 30%–75%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of +2.8%.
Echo #1 — Oversold Reversal
2 occurrence(s) · 50% historical success
Historical outcome rate is not a probability — it's what happened in this specific historical sample, with a 95% confidence range.
| Horizon | Positive rate (95% CI) | Median | 25th–75th pct | Baseline median |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5D | 40% (20%–64%) | -0.9% | -2.8% … +1.7% | +0.1% |
| 10D | 53% (30%–75%) | +1.2% | -4.2% … +3.3% | +0.2% |
| 20D | 53% (30%–75%) | +2.8% | -4.0% … +5.2% | +0.7% |
| 40D | 53% (30%–75%) | +3.9% | -8.2% … +12.1% | +1.1% |
| 60D | 47% (25%–70%) | +0.6% | -3.8% … +13.2% | +0.8% |
Sample size: 15 analogs, each at least 10 trading days apart (no double-counted overlapping events).
What happened after each historical match (20-day return)
| Date | Similarity | Regime | 20D outcome | 60D outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-02-23 | 72/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -9.5% | -2.0% |
| 2020-06-24 | 71/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +15.4% | +28.0% |
| 2023-05-03 | 69/100 | Downtrend | +5.6% | +12.1% |
| 2026-04-13 | 67/100 | Downtrend | -18.6% | -28.3% |
| 2026-03-19 | 66/100 | Downtrend | -0.4% | -17.4% |
| 2022-09-08 | 65/100 | Downtrend | -7.2% | -3.0% |
| 2023-02-08 | 65/100 | Uptrend | -8.1% | -4.5% |
| 2022-07-11 | 65/100 | Downtrend | +4.7% | -7.7% |
| 2020-05-20 | 64/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +4.4% | +27.3% |
| 2023-03-09 | 64/100 | Downtrend | -0.8% | +0.6% |
| 2023-04-19 | 64/100 | Downtrend | +4.2% | +13.6% |
| 2018-12-28 | 64/100 | Downtrend | +9.1% | +12.9% |
| 2019-08-09 | 64/100 | Downtrend | +2.8% | -0.6% |
| 2019-10-01 | 63/100 | Downtrend | -0.3% | +2.5% |
| 2025-10-17 | 62/100 | Downtrend | +9.9% | +31.2% |
Every accepted match is compared to today across 6 domains (price structure, momentum, technical, volatility, volume, relative strength) using z-scored feature distances — no single indicator dominates. Matches within 10 trading days of each other count as one event, not independent evidence. Outcome rates use a Wilson confidence interval (never a raw percentage alone), the mean return is winsorized against extreme outliers, and "Analog Quality" separately captures sample size, data completeness, and regime match — distinct from raw similarity. Relative strength is measured against SPY and against XLK (this stock's sector).
Cross-stock analogs — real other companies, not this stock's own history.
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
61
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.
🕰️ StockIQ Time Machine
What did StockIQ know — and when? Pick a date from the real accumulated history.
As of August 26, 2026
Then
71
$63.06
Now
61
$59.87
What happened since
Signals detected by this date
No signals detected by this date
🧬 STOCK DNA
This stock's profile across 8 real dimensions — a research tool, not a recommendation
Growth
56
Quality
63
Value
67
Momentum
51
Risk
54
Sentiment
74
Fundamental
69
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING CTSH...
Recent media coverage of Cognizant highlights its focus on workforce development and AI-driven growth. The company has emphasized expanding U.S. hiring, particularly targeting 1,500 college graduates to prepare workers for the AI era, while projecting significant economic benefits from AI adoption. Analysts also note Cognizant’s strong financial fundamentals, including low earnings multiples and solid profitability, positioning it as a compelling value stock. The company’s efforts to build an AI-ready workforce and its strategic investments in education and certification programs remain central themes.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Cognizant. News trend score: 74. Reason: 9 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 5 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
8
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
42
Psychology
34
Fundamentals
69
Technical
51
Valuation
67
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
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.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price (3M)
+38%
Market Narrative
35
Fundamental Reality
42
Narrative Gap
-7
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
CTSH’s psychology profile suggests a detached, almost detached-from-reality euphoria, where traders overlook the -31% DCF discount and weak momentum (-0.8%) while anchoring to a +15.8% 200-day outperformance. Herding behavior is present but muted, likely due to the stock’s relative underperformance today (-3.8% vs. peers). The narrative gap (3 points) hints at a disconnect between positive sentiment (86) and valuation realities. The key question is whether traders will sustain this disconnect or adjust to the fundamental mispricing.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 04:50 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Cognizant plans to hire 1,500 U.S. college graduates and scale a new Frontier Cert"
"Cognizant (CTSH) clears the Decent Value screen with a low earnings multiple, strong profitability, solid financial health"
"Cognizant Expands US Hiring Through Universities"
📈 5D 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 — 85/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jesse Livermore — 24/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for CTSH reflects deep methodological differences in how these investors evaluate stocks. Walter Bagehot’s high score and bullish stance hinge on liquidity and resilience during crises, a focus on structural stability rather than growth potential. Meanwhile, Benjamin Graham and Edgar Lawrence Smith’s strong buy signals stem from their emphasis on intrinsic value and long-term compounding, suggesting the stock meets their defensive or 'buy-and-hold' criteria. In contrast, Peter Lynch’s low score and outright rejection highlight his strict growth-at-a-reasonable-price filter, where CTSH may lack the explosive upside he prioritizes. The middle-ground methodologies—like Howard Marks’ mixed view or Philip Fisher’s solid-but-not-exceptional rating—reflect nuanced concerns about valuation or market sentiment, while efficient-market theorists dismiss it as unexceptional compared to broad indices. This spectrum underscores whether the stock is seen as a defensive anchor, a speculative play, or simply unremarkable.
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 85
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 84
Strong liquidity — would likely survive a real credit squeeze
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟢 78
Attractive to a Defensive Graham Investor
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 78
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 77
Looks like a real 'buy and hold for a decade' candidate
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 75
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 72
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟢 68
The kind of quiet compounder a patient holder could actually stick with
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)
🟡 62
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 61
Solid, but not the exceptional quality Fisher looked for
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)
🟡 54
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
🟡 47
Some discount, but not the deep 'net-net' bargain Graham's enterprising bar sets
Key question
Is the stock statistically cheap enough to justify the extra risk?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 44
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 42
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)
🔴 26
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 24
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 300 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟡 Indicators are mixed — no clear bias (4 bullish · 5 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 uptrend 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
16.1%
Net Margin
10.6%
EBITDA Margin
18.7%
ROE
14.9%
ROA
10.8%
ROIC
—
EPS
$4.57
Cash
$1.90B
Total Debt
$576.00M
Current Ratio
2.14
Debt/Equity
0.04
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 18.8.2026 | $0.330 |
| 18.5.2026 | $0.330 |
| 17.5.2026 | $0.330 |
| 18.2.2026 | $0.330 |
| 17.2.2026 | $0.330 |
| 18.11.2025 | $0.310 |
| 17.11.2025 | $0.310 |
| 18.8.2025 | $0.310 |
| 17.8.2025 | $0.310 |
| 19.5.2025 | $0.310 |
| 18.5.2025 | $0.310 |
| 18.2.2025 | $0.310 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$59.87
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$87.06
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
+45.4%
🟢 Appears cheap relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
2.8%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2.8% | $2.67B | $2.45B |
| 2 | 2.8% | $2.74B | $2.31B |
| 3 | 2.7% | $2.82B | $2.17B |
| 4 | 2.6% | $2.89B | $2.05B |
| 5 | 2.5% | $2.96B | $1.92B |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$2.60B
Terminal Value
$46.69B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$30.35B
Enterprise Value
$41.25B
Net Debt
$-1.32B
Equity Value
$42.57B
*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
$30.71
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$13.28
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 9 positive, 6 neutral, 5 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Benzinga · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
ChartMill · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
ChartMill · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
ChartMill · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 13.9.2026
Cognizant (CTSH) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 61/100, 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.
CTSH currently scores 61/100 (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, CTSH's estimated fair value is $87.06, which is 45.4% above the current price of $59.87. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
CTSH's technical score is 51/100, 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: Estimated fair value: $87.06 vs. price $59.87 (+45.4%); Free cash flow growth: 42.0%; Operating margin is stable or improving over time.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Calmar: -0.09 (3y annualized return -5.1% / max drawdown 57.3%); Net income growth: -0.4%; Price is below the 200-day average.
Yes — CTSH 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 1 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kim John Sunshin | Open Market Sale | 2.9.2026 | 2,500 | -2,500 | $63.37 |
| Kim John Sunshin | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 2,242 | -2,242 | — |
| Gummadi Surya | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.9.2026 | 2,611 | -2,611 | $64.58 |
| Gummadi Surya | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 1,168 | +1,168 | — |
| Kerdman Alina | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 199 | -199 | — |
| Kerdman Alina | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 14 | +14 | — |
| Gummadi Surya | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 2,310 | -2,310 | — |
| Gummadi Surya | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 1,168 | -1,168 | — |
| Gummadi Surya | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 2,310 | +2,310 | — |
| Kerdman Alina | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 408 | +408 | — |
| Gummadi Surya | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 319 | +319 | — |
| Gummadi Surya | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 1,427 | +1,427 | — |
| Gummadi Surya | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 319 | -319 | — |
| Gummadi Surya | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 1,427 | -1,427 | — |
| Ayyar Balu Ganesh | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 1,155 | -1,155 | — |
| Ayyar Balu Ganesh | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 903 | +903 | — |
| Ayyar Balu Ganesh | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 903 | -903 | — |
| Ayyar Balu Ganesh | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 1,155 | +1,155 | — |
| Kerdman Alina | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 14 | -14 | — |
| Kim John Sunshin | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 408 | -408 | — |
| Kerdman Alina | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 408 | -408 | — |
| Kerdman Alina | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 199 | +199 | — |
| Kerdman Alina | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.9.2026 | 206 | -206 | $64.58 |
| Kim John Sunshin | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 478 | -478 | — |
| Kim John Sunshin | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 1,274 | -1,274 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
35,613,121 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 44,811,814 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
58.6% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 59.4% 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