Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
· ·
$10.95
▲ $0.07 (+0.6%)
Market data updated: 09/21 09:49 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/21/2026
News analyzed: 09/21/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
$10.88 - $10.95
52-Week Range
$10.24 - $10.99
Beta
—
Next Earnings
04.11.2026
Support
$10.76
Resistance
$10.98
+2.0% (1Y)
Strengths: 10/18 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
🟢 Bullish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Daily volatility (ATR)
ATR: 0.3% of price
Risk
Biggest negative driver
Liquidity risk
Current ratio: 0.08
Risk
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
56
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
50
Quality
No data available
Value
50
Momentum
71
Risk
42
Sentiment
56
Fundamental
49
Institutional
No data available
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
Not enough comparably-scored stocks yet to show similar matches.
This stock hasn't been analyzed by StockIQAI's movement engine yet — coverage is still expanding. Check back soon.
Recent media coverage of **Dynamix Corporation** (or related entities like *Skip Dynamix*) has centered on its acquisition by **Draganfly Inc.** (DPRO), with headlines highlighting the deal’s completion in June 2026 and a subsequent 9.9% share price increase. Additionally, financial analysts have flagged DPRO—now including Dynamix assets—as a high-growth micro-cap stock. Separately, Dynamix Capital Partners announced a $95 million financing fund in July 2026 to support grid power projects for Texas data centers, though no direct Dynamix Corp. updates were provided. Coverage remains sparse on the parent company itself.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Dynamix Corporation - Class A Ordinary Share. News trend score: 56. Reason: 1 of the last 4 articles are positive, versus 0 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
22
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
94
Fundamentals
49
Technical
71
Valuation
50
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.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
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)
+1%
Market Narrative
47
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
-3
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior for DYNC is overwhelmingly dominated by anchoring, with traders likely fixating on the 0.3% gap below resistance. The narrative gap (-4) suggests a slight disconnect between sentiment (46) and objective reality (50), but this is inconsequential compared to the anchoring effect. Low FOMO, panic, or herding scores indicate no herd mentality or panic-driven moves—only a stubborn focus on the resistance level. The key question is whether this anchor holds or if a break below it could trigger re-evaluation, given the otherwise neutral technical backdrop.
Updated: 09/07/2026, 04:56 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Draganfly Completes the Acquisition of Skip Dynamix; Shares up 9.9%"
Signal classification confidence: Medium (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
Morgan Housel — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Walter Bagehot — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for DYNC reflects a clash between methodologies that prioritize long-term fundamentals and those that flag structural or market risks. Morgan Housel’s near-perfect score highlights a quiet, compounding opportunity—ideal for patient investors—while Thorstein Veblen’s alignment with real value creation suggests a business growing organically, though not without nuance. In contrast, Howard Marks’ caution and the mid-cycle neutrality of Samuel Armstrong Nelson imply that while the fundamentals may be solid, market expectations or timing could complicate the picture. Meanwhile, the low scores from Graham, Bagehot, and the efficient-market camp reveal deep skepticism: either the data is insufficient for traditional valuation (Graham) or the liquidity and market inefficiency risks outweigh any potential (Bagehot, Malkiel/Bogle). The middle-ground approaches—Fisher, Lynch, and Livermore—lack clear signals, while Schwager’s low score underscores a lack of technical or disciplined entry triggers, leaving the stock in a gray zone for most systematic or trend-following strategies.
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟢 100
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?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 30%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 79
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟢 67
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟢 67
Growth appears aligned with real value creation
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 62
Mixed — a good business, but expectations may already be high
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 52
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)
🟡 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%
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 50
Not enough growth data for a real Lynch read
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 47
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
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 30
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)
🔴 15
Not enough dividend/growth data for a real Smith read
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 25%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🔴 10
Cycle looks stretched toward overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 0
Not enough balance-sheet/valuation data for a real Graham read
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 15%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 0
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
🔴 0
Not enough valuation data for a real Enterprising-Graham read
Key question
Is the stock statistically cheap enough to justify the extra risk?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 20%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 283 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟢 Most indicators support an uptrend (8 bullish · 3 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 trading range, but the picture isn't yet clear enough on the likely direction.
Low confidence
$10.76
Range Bottom
$10.98
Range Top
50
Trading Days in Range
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
48.9%
ROA
-7.6%
ROIC
—
EPS
—
Cash
$223.70K
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
0.08
Debt/Equity
—
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
Not enough data to compute signals.
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
—
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
—
Not enough data to compute signals.
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 1 positive, 3 neutral, 0 negative out of the last 4 articles.
GlobeNewswire · 30.7.2026
Insider Monkey · 19.6.2026
MT Newswires · 11.6.2026
GlobeNewswire · 11.6.2026
Dynamix Corporation - Class A Ordinary Share (DYNC) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 56/100, rated "Moderate" (a partial score — based on only 6 of 7 categories, some data is currently unavailable). The score is a weighted average across up to 7 categories (technical, fundamental, growth, fair value, news, quality, risk), based on real data only.
DYNC currently scores 56/100 (Moderate) across the categories we measure (a partial score — based on only 6 of 7 categories, some data is currently unavailable). StockIQ doesn't give buy/sell recommendations — use this as one data point in your own research, not as investment advice.
DYNC's technical score is 71/100, 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: ATR: 0.3% of price; Return on equity (ROE): 48.9% — strong; Price is above the 50-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Current ratio: 0.08; Calmar: 0.44 (3y annualized return 6.4% / max drawdown 14.5%); -2.4% over the last 3 months relative to the index.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for DYNC.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 0 filings.
No recent insider transaction filings found for this stock.
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
3,171 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 75,255 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
27.0% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 2.7% 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