Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$89.35
▲ $1.42 (+1.6%)
Market data updated: 09/20 02:48 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/20/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$33.72B
Day Range
$87.39 - $89.92
52-Week Range
$54.11 - $92.59
Beta
—
Next Earnings
28.10.2026
Support
$69.79
Resistance
$92.59
DXCM 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.
+17.9% (1Y)
Strengths: 19/29 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
🟢 Bullish
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
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: 47.2%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $57.73 vs. price $89.35 (-35.4%)
Fair Value
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (79/100), but fair-value analysis scores this stock as relatively expensive (33/100) — the growth story and the current price aren't fully aligned.
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
85/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
92/100
Analog Quality
-3.9%
Median 40D Outcome
42/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
27%
+5.7% … +16.2%
🟡 Base
7%
+0.5% … +0.5%
🔴 Bearish
67%
-14.3% … -6.8%
Typical timeframe (based on real historical rates clearing a 60% bar): 20 trading days.
📌 Bottom line: Out of 15 similar historical cases for this stock, 27% (95% CI 11%–52%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of -6.5%.
Echo #1 — Momentum Breakout
1 occurrence(s) · 100% historical success
Echo #2 — Trend Acceleration
7 occurrence(s) · 14% 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%) | -2.2% | -7.8% … +2.5% | +0.6% |
| 10D | 40% (20%–64%) | -0.0% | -7.8% … +3.6% | +1.0% |
| 20D | 27% (11%–52%) | -6.5% | -10.9% … +2.1% | +1.9% |
| 40D | 40% (20%–64%) | -3.9% | -19.3% … +2.4% | +4.3% |
| 60D | 33% (15%–58%) | -17.9% | -20.7% … +2.0% | +7.3% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-04-25 | 85/100 | ✓ Uptrend | -9.0% | -18.8% |
| 2023-06-02 | 84/100 | Uptrend | +3.6% | -17.9% |
| 2021-10-14 | 82/100 | ✓ Uptrend | +14.9% | -16.6% |
| 2023-07-28 | 82/100 | Uptrend | -23.9% | -35.0% |
| 2018-09-27 | 82/100 | Uptrend | -12.7% | -25.0% |
| 2019-03-05 | 82/100 | Uptrend | -20.4% | -18.4% |
| 2023-07-05 | 82/100 | Uptrend | -3.3% | -25.5% |
| 2019-07-15 | 82/100 | Uptrend | +0.5% | -0.5% |
| 2019-08-09 | 81/100 | ✓ Uptrend | -6.5% | +2.0% |
| 2023-04-28 | 80/100 | Uptrend | -5.2% | +7.7% |
| 2020-02-06 | 80/100 | Uptrend | +19.9% | +47.5% |
| 2024-02-08 | 79/100 | Uptrend | +6.5% | +2.0% |
| 2024-04-11 | 79/100 | Uptrend | -8.2% | -20.6% |
| 2024-01-24 | 78/100 | Uptrend | -7.8% | +2.6% |
| 2025-07-29 | 77/100 | Uptrend | -14.8% | -20.9% |
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 XLV (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
64
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
70
$89.16
Now
64
$89.35
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
79
Quality
58
Value
33
Momentum
72
Risk
48
Sentiment
56
Fundamental
79
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING DXCM...
Recent media coverage of Dexcom has centered on its stock performance and financial outlook. Analysts highlight a mixed five-year stock trend, with a 35% decline despite valuation models suggesting undervaluation. The company’s Q2 earnings were noted in comparisons with peer patient monitoring stocks, while recent stock gains—up 23.6% in six months—sparked discussions about potential upside. Dexcom also announced an upcoming presentation at the Wells Fargo Healthcare Conference, signaling investor interest in its strategic direction.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Dexcom. News trend score: 56. Reason: 5 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
31
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
41
Psychology
45
Fundamentals
79
Technical
72
Valuation
33
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
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.
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
Price (3M)
+23%
Market Narrative
58
Fundamental Reality
41
Narrative Gap
+17
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s dominant herding behavior suggests traders are aligning with peers rather than acting on independent signals. The narrative gap (66 vs. 41) hints at overestimation of fundamentals, while euphoria and overconfidence scores reflect detached valuation optimism. Key tension lies in whether momentum divergence (price vs. fundamentals) will break herding or reinforce it. The open question: Will peer alignment persist, or will valuation disconnects trigger re-evaluation?
Updated: 09/09/2026, 04:54 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"DexCom shareholders have seen the stock decline about 35.1% over five years"
"DexCom has been a great trade... beating the S&P 500 by 11.5%... solid quarterly results"
"DexCom stock has delivered... a Discounted Cash Flow estimate points to an intrinsic value that sits meaningfully above the current market price"
"broader valuation checks lean cautious and market-based multiples look roughly in line with peers"
📈 18D 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
Peter Lynch — 80/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham — 10/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The methodologies here split sharply between bullish growth-oriented investors and cautious, valuation-driven or market-cycle-sensitive ones. Samuel Armstrong Nelson, Peter Lynch, and Philip Fisher all see DXCM as a high-quality, undervalued growth play—Nelson’s cyclical optimism, Lynch’s growth premium, and Fisher’s exceptional-quality label all align to suggest a strong buy. Meanwhile, Thorstein Veblen’s endorsement further reinforces the narrative of real-value creation, though with slightly less conviction. In contrast, the more conservative voices—like Benjamin Graham, Howard Marks, and Charles Mackay—paint a starkly different picture. Graham’s low score reflects a failure of defensive metrics, while Marks flags risk and late-cycle concerns, and Mackay’s skepticism hints at speculative crowd behavior. Even the efficient-market camp dismisses it as unconvincing, leaving only mid-tier signals from liquidity-focused or patient compounder frameworks like Walter Bagehot and Morgan Housel. The divide underscores whether DXCM’s growth justifies its valuation or if it’s overpriced relative to traditional safety standards.
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 80
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟢 78
Exceptional company quality by Fisher's standards
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟢 71
Growth appears aligned with real value creation
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 69
Adequate but not exceptional liquidity
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟢 66
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 57
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 56
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)
🟡 53
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 53
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 47
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 44
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 38
No real setup here — the discipline Schwager's wizards shared would say stay out
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)
🟡 37
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)
🔴 31
Cycle looks stretched toward overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 31
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?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 10
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 300 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟢 Most indicators support an uptrend (7 bullish · 2 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.
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
60.1%
Operating Margin
19.6%
Net Margin
17.9%
EBITDA Margin
25.0%
ROE
30.5%
ROA
13.2%
ROIC
—
EPS
$2.14
Cash
$917.70M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
1.88
Debt/Equity
—
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$89.35
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$57.73
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-35.4%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
17.1%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 17.1% | $1.26B | $1.16B |
| 2 | 13.5% | $1.43B | $1.21B |
| 3 | 9.8% | $1.57B | $1.21B |
| 4 | 6.2% | $1.67B | $1.18B |
| 5 | 2.5% | $1.71B | $1.11B |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$1.08B
Terminal Value
$26.98B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$17.54B
Enterprise Value
$23.41B
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$23.41B
*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
$6.77
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$6.54
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 5 positive, 11 neutral, 4 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Benzinga · 18.9.2026
Benzinga · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
MT Newswires · 14.9.2026
Business Wire · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
MT Newswires · 14.9.2026
Zacks · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Business Wire · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
StockStory · 10.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 9.9.2026
Barchart · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
Simply Wall St. · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
Dexcom (DXCM) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 64/100, 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.
DXCM currently scores 64/100 (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, DXCM's estimated fair value is $57.73, which is 35.4% below the current price of $89.35. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
DXCM's technical score is 72/100, 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: 47.2%; Free cash flow growth: 70.8%; Net income growth: 45.1%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $57.73 vs. price $89.35 (-35.4%); Calmar: -0.03 (3y annualized return -1.7% / max drawdown 61.0%); MACD histogram is negative — falling momentum.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for DXCM.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 14 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Boehnlein Glenn S | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.9.2026 | 5,841 | +5,841 | — |
| Stern Sadie | Open Market Sale | 27.8.2026 | 126,043 | -2,565 | $88.37 |
| Stern Sadie | Open Market Sale | 27.8.2026 | 2,565 | -2,565 | $88.37 |
| Stern Sadie | Tax Withholding in Shares | 22.8.2026 | 128,608 | -1,451 | $92.34 |
| Leach Jacob Steven | Tax Withholding in Shares | 22.8.2026 | 418,908 | -1,451 | $92.34 |
| Brown Michael Jon | Tax Withholding in Shares | 22.8.2026 | 101,502 | -1,451 | $92.34 |
| Sylvain Jereme M | Tax Withholding in Shares | 22.8.2026 | 150,390 | -1,451 | $92.34 |
| Sylvain Jereme M | Tax Withholding in Shares | 22.8.2026 | 1,451 | -1,451 | $92.34 |
| Brown Michael Jon | Tax Withholding in Shares | 22.8.2026 | 1,451 | -1,451 | $92.34 |
| Leach Jacob Steven | Tax Withholding in Shares | 22.8.2026 | 1,451 | -1,451 | $92.34 |
| Stern Sadie | Tax Withholding in Shares | 22.8.2026 | 1,451 | -1,451 | $92.34 |
| SAYER KEVIN R | Open Market Sale | 20.8.2026 | 302,214 | -97 | $91.41 |
| SAYER KEVIN R | Open Market Sale | 20.8.2026 | 302,311 | -7,351 | $90.78 |
| SAYER KEVIN R | Open Market Sale | 20.8.2026 | 309,662 | -19,308 | $89.71 |
| SAYER KEVIN R | Open Market Sale | 20.8.2026 | 7,351 | -7,351 | $90.78 |
| SAYER KEVIN R | Open Market Sale | 20.8.2026 | 97 | -97 | $91.41 |
| SAYER KEVIN R | Open Market Sale | 20.8.2026 | 19,308 | -19,308 | $89.71 |
| Brown Michael Jon | Open Market Sale | 14.8.2026 | 1,700 | -1,700 | $91.93 |
| AUGUSTINOS NICHOLAS | Gift | 12.8.2026 | 1,075 | -1,075 | — |
| Heller Bridgette P | Open Market Sale | 12.8.2026 | 1,012 | -1,012 | $88.29 |
| AUGUSTINOS NICHOLAS | Gift | 12.8.2026 | 37,382 | -1,075 | — |
| Heller Bridgette P | Open Market Sale | 12.8.2026 | 29,570 | -1,012 | $88.29 |
| FOLETTA MARK G | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 2,000 | -2,000 | $85.32 |
| FOLETTA MARK G | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 48,852 | -2,000 | $85.32 |
| FOLETTA MARK G | Open Market Sale | 31.7.2026 | 2,000 | -2,000 | $80.00 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
17,626,435 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 17,545,086 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
65.9% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 52.2% 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