Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Materials · ·
$274.08
▼ $0.52 (-0.2%)
Market data updated: 09/16 11:51 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/16/2026
News analyzed: 09/16/2026
Market Cap
$76.83B
Day Range
$272.25 - $278.15
52-Week Range
$243.15 - $309.27
Beta
—
Next Earnings
26.10.2026
ECL is a stock from the Materials sector — Mining, chemicals, and metals — the raw materials that feed other industries, sensitive to commodity prices.
+4.4% (1Y)
Strengths: 9/32 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
🔴 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: $108.92 vs. price $274.08 (-60.3%)
Fair Value
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
84/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
91/100
Analog Quality
+5.3%
Median 40D Outcome
79/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
53%
+1.9% … +5.8%
🟡 Base
13%
+0.4% … +0.6%
🔴 Bearish
33%
-3.2% … -2.5%
Typical timeframe (based on real historical rates clearing a 60% bar): 40 trading days.
📌 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 +1.5%.
Echo #1 — Oversold Reversal
1 occurrence(s) · 100% historical success
Echo #2 — Trend Acceleration
1 occurrence(s) · 0% 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 | 47% (25%–70%) | +0.7% | -1.5% … +2.1% | +0.4% |
| 10D | 40% (20%–64%) | +0.6% | -2.9% … +1.9% | +0.6% |
| 20D | 53% (30%–75%) | +1.5% | -1.9% … +3.1% | +1.1% |
| 40D | 67% (42%–85%) | +5.3% | -2.1% … +8.4% | +1.6% |
| 60D | 67% (42%–85%) | +3.3% | -0.4% … +8.9% | +2.9% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-10-01 | 84/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -5.1% | +8.9% |
| 2018-02-20 | 83/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +3.7% | +12.1% |
| 2021-09-27 | 81/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +1.5% | +3.3% |
| 2025-04-03 | 80/100 | Consolidation | +2.1% | +8.9% |
| 2023-08-16 | 80/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -2.5% | -3.6% |
| 2018-12-14 | 80/100 | Consolidation | -2.9% | +12.4% |
| 2025-12-16 | 79/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +7.0% | +5.2% |
| 2017-08-24 | 79/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +0.8% | +0.9% |
| 2018-10-23 | 79/100 | Consolidation | +5.5% | +3.3% |
| 2018-06-29 | 79/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +0.3% | +12.1% |
| 2019-10-10 | 78/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -1.2% | -3.0% |
| 2025-01-13 | 78/100 | Downtrend | +11.9% | +1.8% |
| 2025-08-05 | 76/100 | Consolidation | +2.5% | -3.4% |
| 2025-09-08 | 76/100 | Consolidation | +1.6% | -1.6% |
| 2025-10-16 | 75/100 | Consolidation | -3.2% | +1.1% |
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 XLB (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
50
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
42
Quality
63
Value
33
Momentum
29
Risk
64
Sentiment
74
Fundamental
74
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING ECL...
Recent media coverage of Ecolab has centered on its stock performance and investor sentiment. Analysts note the company’s stock has underperformed the Nasdaq Composite over the past year, though they remain cautiously optimistic about its growth potential. Ecolab recently hosted an Investor Day at the SC26 Supercomputing Conference, signaling strategic updates. Technical analysts highlight a potential breakout setup, while an insider sale by the chairman raised attention. No major operational or financial disruptions were reported.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Ecolab. News trend score: 74. Reason: 6 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 2 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
24
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
42
Psychology
45
Fundamentals
74
Technical
29
Valuation
33
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
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.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
Price (3M)
+2%
Market Narrative
62
Fundamental Reality
42
Narrative Gap
+20
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant **herding** behavior reflects relative underperformance against peers, suggesting traders may be aligning with broader sector trends despite weak momentum (-1.5% ROC) and detached valuation (+155% DCF). The **overconfidence** score (45) hints at investors overvaluing fundamentals relative to price action, while **euphoria** (33) indicates detached optimism from fair-value metrics. The **narrative gap** (27) widens reality (42) from perception (69), implying traders may be prioritizing sentiment over technical or fundamental signals. The key question: *Will relative underperformance trigger further alignment or break the herd’s cautious stance?*
Updated: 09/09/2026, 04:54 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"analysts remain reasonably bullish about the stock’s growth potential"
"Ecolab has lagged behind the Nasdaq Composite over the past year"
"supported by earnings growth, raised guidance, and potential upside"
"Christophe Beck, Chairman at Ecolab, sold $5.00M in stock"
📈 10D 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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — 78/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor) — 8/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Based on his documented principles, the model estimates that the more cycle‑oriented thinkers such as Nelson, Housel, Smith and Mackay give relatively high scores (78‑69), reflecting optimism about the stock’s favorable position in the market cycle and its suitability as a quiet compounder. In contrast, value‑oriented investors like Graham, Graham‑Enterprising and Schwager assign very low scores (16‑8), indicating failures on defensive criteria, lack of statistical cheapness, and an overall weak setup. Mid‑range scores from Marks, Loeb and Veblen show mixed views, balancing capital‑preservation concerns with uncertain growth translation. The efficient‑market view and Fisher/Lynch perspectives fall in the middle‑low range, suggesting the stock does not meet their quality or growth‑at‑reasonable‑price thresholds. Overall, the divergence stems from each methodology’s weighting of cycle position, growth quality, valuation and liquidity.
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟢 72
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 71
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 69
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟢 65
Reasonable capital-preservation profile
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 55
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 52
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 51
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 49
Adequate but not exceptional liquidity
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 43
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 36
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 35
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)
🔴 23
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 16
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 16
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 8
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
Based on the last 300 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (1 bullish · 7 bearish · 3 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
44.5%
Operating Margin
17.0%
Net Margin
12.9%
EBITDA Margin
17.0%
ROE
21.2%
ROA
8.4%
ROIC
—
EPS
$7.33
Cash
$646.20M
Total Debt
$870.40M
Current Ratio
1.08
Debt/Equity
0.09
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 16.6.2026 | $0.730 |
| 15.6.2026 | $0.730 |
| 17.3.2026 | $0.730 |
| 16.3.2026 | $0.730 |
| 16.12.2025 | $0.730 |
| 15.12.2025 | $0.730 |
| 16.9.2025 | $0.650 |
| 15.9.2025 | $0.650 |
| 17.6.2025 | $0.650 |
| 16.6.2025 | $0.650 |
| 18.3.2025 | $0.650 |
| 17.3.2025 | $0.650 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$274.08
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$108.92
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-60.3%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
4.3%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 4.3% | $1.99B | $1.82B |
| 2 | 3.8% | $2.06B | $1.74B |
| 3 | 3.4% | $2.13B | $1.65B |
| 4 | 2.9% | $2.20B | $1.56B |
| 5 | 2.5% | $2.25B | $1.46B |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$1.90B
Terminal Value
$35.49B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$23.06B
Enterprise Value
$31.29B
Net Debt
$224.20M
Equity Value
$31.06B
*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
$34.26
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$11.03
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 6 positive, 12 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
GuruFocus.com · 15.9.2026
Benzinga · 15.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 11.9.2026
Zacks · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Barchart · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 27.8.2026
Zacks · 27.8.2026
Yahoo · 25.8.2026
TheStreet · 25.8.2026
Yahoo · 25.8.2026
Business Wire · 25.8.2026
ChartMill · 22.8.2026
Benzinga · 21.8.2026
Yahoo · 20.8.2026
Barchart · 20.8.2026
Yahoo · 19.8.2026
Ecolab (ECL) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 50/100, 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.
ECL currently scores 50/100 (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, ECL's estimated fair value is $108.92, which is 60.3% below the current price of $274.08. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
ECL's technical score is 29/100, 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; ATR: 2.0% of price; Return on equity (ROE): 21.2% — strong.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $108.92 vs. price $274.08 (-60.3%); Earnings per share (EPS) growth: -1.2%; Net income growth: -1.7%.
Yes — ECL 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 5 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beck Christophe | Open Market Sale | 18.8.2026 | 17,862 | -17,862 | $280.14 |
| Cook Gregory B | Open Market Sale | 11.8.2026 | 4,567.424 | -4,567.424 | $285.13 |
| Cook Gregory B | Open Market Sale | 11.8.2026 | 11,673 | -4,567 | $285.13 |
| Bradway Jennifer J | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 3.8.2026 | 6,457 | +6,457 | — |
| Bradway Jennifer J | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 3.8.2026 | 6,457 | -6,457 | — |
| Bradway Jennifer J | Tax Withholding in Shares | 3.8.2026 | 2,944.392 | -2,944.392 | $278.79 |
| Bradway Jennifer J | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 3.8.2026 | 12,548 | +6,457 | — |
| Bradway Jennifer J | Tax Withholding in Shares | 3.8.2026 | 9,603 | -2,944 | $278.79 |
| Bradway Jennifer J | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 3.8.2026 | 0 | -6,457 | — |
| Kirkland Scott D | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 30.7.2026 | 3,972 | +3,972 | $117.73 |
| Kirkland Scott D | Open Market Sale | 30.7.2026 | 3,357 | -3,357 | $276.96 |
| Kirkland Scott D | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 30.7.2026 | 3,972 | -3,972 | — |
| Kirkland Scott D | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 30.7.2026 | 20,881 | +3,972 | $117.73 |
| Kirkland Scott D | Open Market Sale | 30.7.2026 | 17,524 | -3,357 | $276.96 |
| Kirkland Scott D | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 30.7.2026 | 0 | -3,972 | — |
| McKibben Tracy B | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 130.18 | +130.18 | — |
| Ballard Shari L | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 130.18 | +130.18 | — |
| LARSON MICHAEL | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 130.18 | +130.18 | — |
| ZILLMER JOHN J | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 130.18 | +130.18 | — |
| Whalen Julie | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 130.18 | +130.18 | — |
| Doukeris Michel D | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 130.18 | +130.18 | — |
| Ballard Shari L | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 130.18 | +130.18 | $278.46 |
| Green Eric Mark | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 130.18 | +130.18 | — |
| MacLennan David | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 130.18 | +130.18 | — |
| Vautrinot Suzanne M | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 130.18 | +130.18 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
4,734,079 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 3,096,775 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
52.5% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 53.9% 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