Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Industrials · ·
$67.21
▼ $0.31 (-0.5%)
Market data updated: 09/15 10:02 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/15/2026
News analyzed: 09/15/2026
Market Cap
$4.18B
Day Range
$66.67 - $68.28
52-Week Range
$66.67 - $137.42
Beta
—
Next Earnings
27.10.2026
ESAB is a stock from the Industrials sector — Manufacturing, aerospace, defense, and infrastructure — closely tied to capital-investment cycles and economic growth.
-38.4% (1Y)
Strengths: 3/31 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: $38.61 vs. price $67.21 (-42.6%)
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
42
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
34
Quality
58
Value
38
Momentum
6
Risk
40
Sentiment
98
Fundamental
61
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 ESAB Corporation has focused on investor skepticism regarding its long-term sustainability and growth potential. Analysts highlight concerns over weak earnings quality, inconsistent cash reinvestment, and vulnerability to economic cycles, particularly in the industrials sector. Despite a 10% year-over-year sales increase, first-quarter results were deemed unconvincing, prompting a cautious "hold" rating. The company’s stock has underperformed compared to broader market trends, reflecting broader industry challenges.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about ESAB Corporation. News trend score: 98. Reason: 10 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
36
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
40
Psychology
84
Fundamentals
61
Technical
6
Valuation
38
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
Price (3M)
-32%
Market Narrative
64
Fundamental Reality
40
Narrative Gap
+24
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant anchoring behavior (score 52) reflects traders’ fixation on the 2.4% support level, likely due to its proximity. Overconfidence (45) and loss aversion (37) coexist, as investors may cling to overvalued expectations despite underperformance. The narrative-reality gap (30) hints at a disconnect between optimistic sentiment and deteriorating fundamentals. The key question is whether traders will break the support anchor or hold, given the lack of momentum or panic signals. The absence of confirmation bias (0) suggests no reinforcement of existing views, leaving behavior vulnerable to external catalysts.
Updated: 09/05/2026, 04:55 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"ESAB reported unconvincing first quarter results, and while sales were up 10% on the year, the quality of growth was poor"
"industry has shed 2.5% over the past six months... market seems to be baking in a prolonged downturn"
"stocks... have caught Wall Street’s attention... with price targets implying returns above 20%. But investors should take these forecasts with a grain of salt"
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 — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jesse Livermore — 18/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide among historical methodologies, with scores ranging from a near-perfect 96 under Samuel Armstrong Nelson’s cycle-based approach—who sees it as oversold and favorably positioned—to a dismal 18 under Jesse Livermore’s trend-following rules, which flag it as counter-trend. Meanwhile, the 'buy-and-hold' camp (Edgar Lawrence Smith) and the cautious crowd-observer (Charles Mackay) both lean positive, with Smith calling it a decade-long hold and Mackay noting early signs of speculative excitement, while Jack Schwager’s neutral stance suggests no clear edge. On the other end, value-focused investors like Benjamin Graham and Philip Fisher dismiss it outright, with Graham’s strict criteria and Fisher’s growth standards both failing, while efficient-market theorists (Malkiel/Bogle) and volatility-averse thinkers (Housel) see little justification for active selection. The contrast highlights a tension between cyclical optimism, speculative caution, and deep-value skepticism—where only a handful of methodologies find even modest merit.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 100
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 80
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 68
A real, disciplined setup with favorable reward/risk
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)
🟢 66
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)
🟢 65
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 53
Adequate but not exceptional liquidity
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 42
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 41
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 40
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)
🟡 40
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 37
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 33
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 28
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 26
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 20
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 18
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
Based on the last 278 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (0 bullish · 11 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 downtrend 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
36.9%
Operating Margin
14.5%
Net Margin
8.0%
EBITDA Margin
17.5%
ROE
10.5%
ROA
4.8%
ROIC
—
EPS
$3.71
Cash
$185.86M
Total Debt
$1.23B
Current Ratio
1.90
Debt/Equity
0.57
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 2.7.2026 | $0.120 |
| 1.7.2026 | $0.120 |
| 2.4.2026 | $0.100 |
| 1.4.2026 | $0.100 |
| 31.12.2025 | $0.100 |
| 30.12.2025 | $0.100 |
| 3.10.2025 | $0.100 |
| 2.10.2025 | $0.100 |
| 3.7.2025 | $0.100 |
| 2.7.2025 | $0.100 |
| 4.4.2025 | $0.080 |
| 3.4.2025 | $0.080 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$67.21
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$38.61
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-42.6%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
3.2%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3.2% | $220.02M | $201.85M |
| 2 | 3.0% | $226.61M | $190.73M |
| 3 | 2.8% | $233.02M | $179.93M |
| 4 | 2.7% | $239.23M | $169.48M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $245.21M | $159.37M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$213.28M
Terminal Value
$3.87B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$2.51B
Enterprise Value
$3.41B
Net Debt
$1.05B
Equity Value
$2.37B
*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
$35.35
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$7.45
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 10 positive, 8 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
StockStory · 3.9.2026
StockStory · 27.8.2026
Yahoo · 27.8.2026
StockStory · 26.8.2026
Yahoo · 26.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 20.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 18.8.2026
Yahoo · 17.8.2026
StockStory · 17.8.2026
StockStory · 15.8.2026
StockStory · 15.8.2026
Motley Fool · 13.8.2026
Yahoo · 13.8.2026
Benzinga · 11.8.2026
Benzinga · 11.8.2026
StockStory · 10.8.2026
Yahoo · 10.8.2026
Simply Wall St. · 8.8.2026
ESAB Corporation (ESAB) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 42/100, 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.
ESAB currently scores 42/100 (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, ESAB's estimated fair value is $38.61, which is 42.6% below the current price of $67.21. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
ESAB's technical score is 6/100, 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: 1.90; Current ratio: 1.90.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $38.61 vs. price $67.21 (-42.6%); ATR: 4.4% of price; Calmar: -0.05 (3y annualized return -2.5% / max drawdown 50.2%).
Yes — ESAB 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 2 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jordan Rhonda L | Open Market Sale | 7.8.2026 | 1,000 | -1,000 | $95.00 |
| Jordan Rhonda L | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 7.8.2026 | 1,000 | +1,000 | $33.33 |
| Jordan Rhonda L | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 7.8.2026 | 1,000 | -1,000 | — |
| Jordan Rhonda L | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 7.8.2026 | 3,733 | -1,000 | — |
| Jordan Rhonda L | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 7.8.2026 | 1,000 | +1,000 | $33.33 |
| Jordan Rhonda L | Open Market Sale | 7.8.2026 | 0 | -1,000 | $95.00 |
| Bhagwakar Ranjana N | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.7.2026 | 15,777 | +15,777 | — |
| Bhagwakar Ranjana N | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.7.2026 | 15,777 | +15,777 | — |
| Bhagwakar Ranjana N | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 9,048 | +9,048 | — |
| Bhagwakar Ranjana N | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 7,056 | +7,056 | — |
| Bhagwakar Ranjana N | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 58,056 | +58,056 | — |
| Bhagwakar Ranjana N | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 9,048 | +9,048 | — |
| Bhagwakar Ranjana N | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 7,056 | +7,056 | — |
| Bhagwakar Ranjana N | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 58,056 | +58,056 | — |
| LUTZ ROBERT S | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 330 | +330 | — |
| RALES MITCHELL P | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 596 | +596 | — |
| Teirlinck Didier P | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 134 | +134 | — |
| RALES MITCHELL P | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 16,432 | +596 | — |
| LUTZ ROBERT S | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 330 | +330 | — |
| Teirlinck Didier P | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 134 | +134 | — |
| RALES MITCHELL P | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 1,200,000 | +1,200,000 | — |
| Kambeyanda Shyam | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 580,552 | +580,552 | — |
| Jones R. Brent | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 145,138 | +145,138 | — |
| Campion Michele | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 52,250 | +52,250 | — |
| Jewell Curtis E | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 58,056 | +58,056 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
5,184,779 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 5,184,211 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
53.5% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 45.7% 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