Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$6.06
▼ $0.01 (-0.2%)
Market data updated: 09/16 03:07 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/16/2026
News analyzed: 09/16/2026
Market Cap
$380.83M
Day Range
$6.00 - $6.24
52-Week Range
$5.13 - $20.40
Beta
—
Next Earnings
03.11.2026
CTSO 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.
+545.4% (1Y)
Strengths: 14/34 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
🟢 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: 65.8%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: -$3.36 vs. price $6.06 (-155.5%)
Fair Value
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (73/100), 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
55
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
today · $6.07
Evidence: Euphoria score crossed 55 (now 98)
What happened after
Still awaiting outcome
🐂🐻 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
73
Quality
42
Value
38
Momentum
64
Risk
42
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
31
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 Cytosorbents Corporation highlights its focus on blood purification technologies for critical care and cardiac surgery. The company announced a **1-for-20 reverse stock split** (effective September 8, 2026) to meet NASDAQ’s $1.00 bid price requirement. Additionally, it presented **positive real-world data** at the European Society of Cardiology Congress, showing that its **CytoSorb device significantly reduced severe bleeding** in CABG patients on ticagrelor. The company also updated progress on its **DrugSorb-ATR FDA pre-submission meetings**, reinforcing its leadership in blood purification solutions.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Cytosorbents Corporation. News trend score: 100. Reason: 10 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
89
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
36
Investors appear highly excited (89), but evidence of strong fundamental conviction is comparatively weak (36).
Psychology
100
Fundamentals
31
Technical
64
Valuation
38
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
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.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price (3M)
+1170%
Market Narrative
88
Fundamental Reality
36
Narrative Gap
+52
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
Market behavior suggests a tug-of-war between **loss aversion** (driven by recent declines and defensive volume) and **FOMO** (amplified by extreme volume and perfect sentiment). The narrative-reality gap (26 points) implies traders may be overestimating positive catalysts, while negative momentum and volatility hint at underlying caution. The key question: *Is the volume spike a last-ditch loss-cutting or a contrarian buying signal?* Neither euphoria nor herding appear dominant, keeping the market in a fragile equilibrium.
Updated: 09/06/2026, 04:45 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"independent new patient-level matched analysis... demonstrating significant reduction in severe perioperative bleeding"
"updates recent DrugSorb-ATR FDA Pre-Submission Meetings"
"Reverse Stock Split... intended to support compliance with Nasdaq’s $1.00 Minimum Bid Price Requirement"
🧠 Market Brain events driving this
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
Jesse Livermore — 83/100
🔴 Weakest match
Charles Mackay — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock splits methodologies into two stark camps: a minority of disciplined, high-conviction traders and investors see it as a compelling opportunity, while the majority—especially those focused on defensive, value-driven, or long-term stability—view it with significant caution. Jack Schwager’s near-perfect score highlights a rare, structured setup with favorable risk/reward dynamics, aligning with systematic or trend-following principles. Meanwhile, Samuel Armstrong Nelson and Charles Mackay’s moderate scores suggest it’s neither a speculative bubble nor a clear contrarian buy, but a stock with cyclical or technical appeal. On the other end, the lowest scorers—like Philip Fisher, Benjamin Graham, and Edgar Lawrence Smith—reject it outright, dismissing it as lacking the quality, stability, or margin of safety they demand. The divide underscores a tension between methodologies prioritizing *momentum* or *relative value* (e.g., Schwager, Nelson) and those insisting on *intrinsic safety* or *patient, long-term holding* (e.g., Graham, Smith), with even Howard Marks’ dual verdicts reflecting the stock’s ambiguous place between cyclical attractiveness and overpriced expectations.
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟢 83
Positive trend — the price action Livermore looked for
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟢 65
Growth appears aligned with real value creation
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)
🟡 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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 49
Mixed — growth exists but the price already reflects much of it
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 46
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 44
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 31
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
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 24
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 23
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 20
Looks late-cycle — the position Marks would treat with extra caution
Key question
Where are we in the cycle right now — near a hot extreme, or a cold one?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🔴 18
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 17
Risk/valuation combination Marks would flag as a caution sign
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🔴 1
Cycle looks stretched toward 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)
🔴 0
Pattern consistent with a crowd delusion Mackay would flag
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 276 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟡 Indicators are mixed — no clear bias (8 bullish · 6 bearish · 0 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.
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
71.5%
Operating Margin
-39.8%
Net Margin
-22.1%
EBITDA Margin
-36.5%
ROE
-138.9%
ROA
-18.6%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$0.13
Cash
$6.25M
Total Debt
$16.67M
Current Ratio
2.13
Debt/Equity
2.82
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$6.06
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$3.36
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-155.5%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
2.7%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2.7% | $-12.89M | $-11.82M |
| 2 | 2.7% | $-13.23M | $-11.14M |
| 3 | 2.6% | $-13.58M | $-10.49M |
| 4 | 2.6% | $-13.93M | $-9.87M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-14.27M | $-9.28M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-12.54M
Terminal Value
$-225.11M
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-146.30M
Enterprise Value
$-198.89M
Net Debt
$10.42M
Equity Value
$-209.31M
*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
$0.09
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$0.04
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 10 positive, 9 neutral, 1 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
PR Newswire · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
TMX Newsfile · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
PR Newswire · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
Zacks Small Cap Research · 3.9.2026
Benzinga · 3.9.2026
Benzinga · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 2.9.2026
PR Newswire · 2.9.2026
Benzinga · 31.8.2026
Benzinga · 20.8.2026
Zacks Small Cap Research · 17.8.2026
Motley Fool · 13.8.2026
Benzinga · 11.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 9.8.2026
Moby · 7.8.2026
GuruFocus.com · 7.8.2026
Cytosorbents Corporation (CTSO) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 55/100, 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.
CTSO currently scores 55/100 (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, CTSO's estimated fair value is -$3.36, which is 155.5% below the current price of $6.06. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
CTSO's technical score is 64/100, which currently reads as bullish — 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: 65.8%; Net income growth: 60.4%; Current ratio: 2.13.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: -$3.36 vs. price $6.06 (-155.5%); SMA 50 recently crossed below SMA 200; Operating margin: -39.8% (negative).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for CTSO.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 7 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chan Phillip P. | Open Market Purchase | 4.9.2026 | 200,000 | +200,000 | $0.35 |
| Chan Phillip P. | Open Market Purchase | 15.6.2026 | 10,333 | +10,333 | $0.43 |
| MARIANI PETER J | Open Market Purchase | 15.6.2026 | 100,000 | +100,000 | $0.44 |
| Chan Phillip P. | Open Market Purchase | 15.6.2026 | 1,744,432 | +10,333 | $0.43 |
| MARIANI PETER J | Open Market Purchase | 15.6.2026 | 638,113 | +100,000 | $0.44 |
| Chan Phillip P. | Open Market Purchase | 12.6.2026 | 251,136 | +251,136 | $0.40 |
| Chan Phillip P. | Open Market Purchase | 12.6.2026 | 1,734,099 | +251,136 | $0.40 |
| Chan Phillip P. | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.11.2025 | 100,000 | +100,000 | $0.64 |
| Chan Phillip P. | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.11.2025 | 1,482,963 | +100,000 | $0.64 |
| Kim Jiny | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.8.2025 | 22,000 | +22,000 | — |
| Deliargyris Efthymios | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.8.2025 | 95,000 | +95,000 | — |
| Sobel Alan D. | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.8.2025 | 22,000 | +22,000 | — |
| Capponi Vincent | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.8.2025 | 111,100 | +111,100 | — |
| Chan Phillip P. | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.8.2025 | 136,400 | +136,400 | — |
| Deliargyris Efthymios | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.8.2025 | 70,000 | +70,000 | — |
| Capponi Vincent | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.8.2025 | 89,100 | +89,100 | — |
| BATOR MICHAEL G. | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.8.2025 | 44,000 | +44,000 | — |
| Jones Edward Raymond | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.8.2025 | 22,000 | +22,000 | — |
| MARIANI PETER J | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.8.2025 | 90,000 | +90,000 | — |
| MARIANI PETER J | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.8.2025 | 71,500 | +71,500 | — |
| Chan Phillip P. | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.8.2025 | 105,600 | +105,600 | — |
| Chan Phillip P. | O | 24.2.2025 | 34,168 | -34,168 | $1.13 |
| MARIANI PETER J | O | 24.2.2025 | 32,625 | +32,625 | $1.13 |
| Capponi Vincent | O | 24.2.2025 | 12,000 | -12,000 | $1.13 |
| MARIANI PETER J | O | 24.2.2025 | 32,625 | -32,625 | $1.13 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
2,306,196 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 2,142,523 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
39.2% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 58.8% 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