Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$1.67
▼ $0.05 (-2.9%)
Market data updated: 09/26 04:11 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/26/2026
News analyzed: 09/26/2026
Market Cap
$105.89M
Day Range
$1.66 - $1.71
52-Week Range
$0.76 - $3.54
Beta
—
Next Earnings
11.11.2026
Support
$1.65
Resistance
$2.86
EQ 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.
+19.3% (1Y)
Strengths: 4/24 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
🔴 Bearish
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: -$10.15 vs. price $1.67 (-707.8%)
Fair Value
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
38
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
32
Quality
58
Value
38
Momentum
19
Risk
40
Sentiment
62
Fundamental
46
Institutional
0
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 Equillium, Inc. has centered on its strategic shifts and investor engagement. Following the setback of its lead asset, the company pivoted to gastrointestinal (GI) diseases, positioning EQ504 as its new flagship therapy. Analysts, including Piper Sandler, have shown optimism, with an overweight rating and a $20 price target, while analysts at Insider Monkey expressed growing confidence in EQ504’s potential. Additionally, Equillium announced participation in upcoming investor conferences, signaling efforts to rebuild investor interest amid financial updates and insider activity.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Equillium, Inc.. News trend score: 62. Reason: 2 of the last 8 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
42
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
52
Psychology
76
Fundamentals
46
Technical
19
Valuation
38
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
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.
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
Price (3M)
-45%
Market Narrative
37
Fundamental Reality
52
Narrative Gap
-15
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s dominant loss aversion (81) reflects deep psychological resistance to further declines after a 24.8% drop over three months, despite muted trading volume. Herding (31) suggests investors are following peers downward, while FOMO and panic signals remain subdued due to weak momentum and neutral RSI. The key question is whether the narrative gap (-9) hints at underappreciated fundamentals or if investors remain anchored to past losses. The open question: *Will the 11.3% distance from support trigger defensive positioning or a shift in risk tolerance?*
Updated: 09/05/2026, 06:50 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Analysts Grow More Confident In Equillium’s (EQ) Lead Asset EQ504"
"Equillium, Inc. underwent a pipeline reset after its lead asset failed, pivoting to GI diseases with EQ504 as the new flagship"
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
Walter Bagehot — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide among methodologies, with the most bullish frameworks—Walter Bagehot’s liquidity-focused approach and Charles Mackay’s skepticism of crowd mania—both scoring near-perfectly, suggesting it may weather financial stress or avoid speculative bubbles. Meanwhile, cycle-oriented investors like Howard Marks and Samuel Armstrong Nelson see it as favorably positioned, scoring in the mid-80s, while more conservative voices like Benjamin Graham and Philip Fisher dismiss it outright, citing weak fundamentals or lack of growth. The middle ground is occupied by traders like Jack Schwager, who see no clear edge, and risk-averse thinkers like Gerald Loeb and Peter Lynch, who flag it as either too volatile or lacking growth potential. At the extreme ends, Morgan Housel’s patience-based model and Jesse Livermore’s trend-following rules reject it entirely, while efficient-market theorists dismiss it as a poor candidate for active outperformance.
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 100
Strong liquidity — would likely survive a real credit squeeze
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 99
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 95
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 94
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 65
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 63
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 45
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
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 43
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 35%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 40
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 40%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 39
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 32
Pattern Veblen would flag as growth pursued for its own sake
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 28
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 40%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 26
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 14
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 0
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
Based on the last 285 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (1 bullish · 9 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 clear downtrend 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
—
Operating Margin
—
Net Margin
—
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
-78.3%
ROA
-70.2%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$0.39
Cash
$30.28M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
10.58
Debt/Equity
—
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$1.67
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$10.15
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-707.8%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
25.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 25.0% | $-28.49M | $-26.14M |
| 2 | 19.4% | $-34.01M | $-28.63M |
| 3 | 13.8% | $-38.69M | $-29.88M |
| 4 | 8.1% | $-41.83M | $-29.64M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-42.88M | $-27.87M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-22.79M
Terminal Value
$-676.17M
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-439.46M
Enterprise Value
$-581.61M
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$-581.61M
*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
$0.50
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$0.50
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 2 positive, 6 neutral, 0 negative out of the last 8 articles.
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 2.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 2.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 13.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 22.7.2026
MT Newswires · 13.7.2026
Insider Monkey · 10.6.2026
MT Newswires · 5.6.2026
Equillium, Inc. (EQ) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 38/100, rated "Weak". The score is a weighted average across up to 7 categories (technical, fundamental, growth, fair value, news, quality, risk), based on real data only.
EQ currently scores 38/100 (Weak) 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, EQ's estimated fair value is -$10.15, which is 707.8% below the current price of $1.67. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
EQ's technical score is 19/100, 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; Current ratio: 10.58; Current ratio: 10.58.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: -$10.15 vs. price $1.67 (-707.8%); ATR: 10.0% of price; Calmar: 0.36 (3y annualized return 32.4% / max drawdown 90.3%).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for EQ.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 9 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Connelly Stephen | Open Market Sale | 5.6.2026 | 30,975 | -30,975 | $2.94 |
| Zedelmayer Christine | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 5.6.2026 | 14,584 | -14,584 | — |
| Zedelmayer Christine | Open Market Sale | 5.6.2026 | 14,584 | -14,584 | $2.93 |
| Zedelmayer Christine | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 5.6.2026 | 14,584 | +14,584 | $0.79 |
| Connelly Stephen | Open Market Sale | 5.6.2026 | 762,025 | -30,975 | $2.94 |
| Zedelmayer Christine | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 5.6.2026 | 77,170 | +14,584 | $0.79 |
| Zedelmayer Christine | Open Market Sale | 5.6.2026 | 62,586 | -14,584 | $2.93 |
| Zedelmayer Christine | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 5.6.2026 | 25,521 | -14,584 | — |
| Connelly Stephen | Open Market Sale | 4.6.2026 | 200,000 | -200,000 | $3.16 |
| Connelly Stephen | Open Market Sale | 4.6.2026 | 793,000 | -200,000 | $3.16 |
| Troupin Barbara | Grant/Award from Employer | 28.5.2026 | 70,000 | +70,000 | — |
| McDermott Charles Douglas | Grant/Award from Employer | 28.5.2026 | 70,000 | +70,000 | — |
| Zedelmayer Christine | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 28.5.2026 | 15,625 | -15,625 | — |
| Zedelmayer Christine | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 28.5.2026 | 14,583 | -14,583 | — |
| Zedelmayer Christine | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 28.5.2026 | 48,512 | -48,512 | — |
| Zedelmayer Christine | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 28.5.2026 | 7,292 | -7,292 | — |
| Zedelmayer Christine | Open Market Sale | 28.5.2026 | 30,208 | -30,208 | $2.98 |
| Zedelmayer Christine | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 28.5.2026 | 15,625 | +15,625 | $0.79 |
| Zedelmayer Christine | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 28.5.2026 | 14,583 | +14,583 | $0.79 |
| Zedelmayer Christine | Open Market Sale | 28.5.2026 | 200 | -200 | $2.71 |
| Zedelmayer Christine | Open Market Sale | 28.5.2026 | 55,604 | -55,604 | $2.70 |
| Zedelmayer Christine | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 28.5.2026 | 48,512 | +48,512 | $0.77 |
| Zedelmayer Christine | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 28.5.2026 | 7,292 | +7,292 | $0.73 |
| BRADBURY DANIEL | Grant/Award from Employer | 28.5.2026 | 70,000 | +70,000 | — |
| Pruzanski Mark | Grant/Award from Employer | 28.5.2026 | 70,000 | +70,000 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
5,500,539 shares short as of 2026-09-15 · vs. 5,369,936 on 2026-08-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
49.8% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 62.6% 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