Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$88.26
▲ $0.01 (+0.0%)
Market data updated: 09/20 03:34 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$50.87B
Day Range
$87.48 - $88.77
52-Week Range
$72.30 - $96.29
Beta
—
Next Earnings
28.10.2026
Support
$81.16
Resistance
$93.91
EW 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.
+18.4% (1Y)
Strengths: 13/30 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
Free cash flow growth
Free cash flow growth: 360.5%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $47.24 vs. price $88.26 (-46.5%)
Fair Value
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
84/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
91/100
Analog Quality
+4.3%
Median 40D Outcome
64/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
47%
+3.2% … +5.7%
🟡 Base
7%
-0.2% … -0.2%
🔴 Bearish
47%
-9.3% … -5.3%
Typical timeframe (based on real historical rates clearing a 60% bar): 5 trading days.
📌 Bottom line: Out of 15 similar historical cases for this stock, 47% (95% CI 25%–70%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of -0.2%.
Echo #1 — Trend Acceleration
1 occurrence(s) · 0% historical success
Echo #2 — Momentum Breakout
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 | 60% (36%–80%) | +1.2% | -0.5% … +4.3% | +0.2% |
| 10D | 40% (20%–64%) | +0.4% | -2.2% … +4.3% | +0.8% |
| 20D | 47% (25%–70%) | -0.2% | -6.3% … +3.5% | +1.3% |
| 40D | 73% (48%–89%) | +4.3% | +1.2% … +8.6% | +2.5% |
| 60D | 73% (48%–89%) | +9.9% | +1.6% … +11.7% | +3.8% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-02-24 | 84/100 | Consolidation | -5.0% | +9.9% |
| 2026-04-07 | 83/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +2.6% | +16.7% |
| 2020-02-07 | 83/100 | Consolidation | -17.8% | -7.7% |
| 2021-02-04 | 82/100 | Consolidation | -4.3% | +10.8% |
| 2017-10-05 | 82/100 | Consolidation | -9.2% | -0.0% |
| 2018-05-04 | 81/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +5.9% | +5.7% |
| 2019-05-03 | 81/100 | Consolidation | -7.0% | +19.5% |
| 2026-05-19 | 80/100 | Consolidation | +5.5% | +11.5% |
| 2026-04-21 | 80/100 | Consolidation | +3.1% | +7.6% |
| 2024-06-12 | 80/100 | Consolidation | +3.7% | -25.1% |
| 2020-10-05 | 80/100 | Consolidation | -9.4% | +11.8% |
| 2026-01-22 | 79/100 | Consolidation | -5.5% | -3.6% |
| 2025-10-21 | 79/100 | Consolidation | +10.5% | +11.0% |
| 2025-09-26 | 77/100 | Consolidation | -0.2% | +13.5% |
| 2026-02-20 | 77/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +3.4% | +3.3% |
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
57
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
51
Quality
63
Value
33
Momentum
39
Risk
54
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
78
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING EW...
Recent media coverage of Edwards Lifesciences highlights its strong market position and investor confidence, despite underperforming the Dow over the past year. Analysts maintain a bullish outlook, praising its dominant share in the heart valve market and a $20 billion total addressable market opportunity. The company will present at the Deutsche Bank Healthcare Summit, while unusual put option activity suggests investors remain optimistic about its stock performance over the next three months.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Edwards Lifesciences. News trend score: 100. Reason: 14 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
30
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
42
Psychology
48
Fundamentals
78
Technical
39
Valuation
33
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
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.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Price (3M)
+1%
Market Narrative
73
Fundamental Reality
42
Narrative Gap
+31
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant herding behavior suggests traders are aligning with peers, as the stock’s -3.2% decline mirrors its sector (-2.3%). While euphoria and overconfidence persist due to extreme valuation (+84% DCF), negative momentum and neutral volume dampen speculative enthusiasm. The key tension lies between valuation-driven confidence and technical weakness, leaving open whether herding persists or shifts to profit-taking. The narrative gap (21 points) hints at a disconnect between optimistic expectations and current fundamentals.
Updated: 09/08/2026, 06:52 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Baron Asset Fund initiated a position in Edwards Lifesciences due to its **dominant heart valve market share**."
"Edwards Lifesciences continues to receive a **highly bullish outlook from Wall Street analysts**."
"Edwards Lifesciences (EW): **The Medical Device Leader Behind the TAVR Boom**"
"Unusually high volume of **out-of-the-money put options** shows investors are **bullish on EW stock** over the next three months."
📈 14D 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
Walter Bagehot — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Thorstein Veblen — 26/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock’s starkly divided verdicts reflect a clash between defensive caution and opportunistic optimism. At the top of the spectrum, Walter Bagehot’s near-perfect score highlights its liquidity resilience, suggesting it could weather financial stress—an appeal to stability-focused investors. Meanwhile, Morgan Housel and Samuel Armstrong Nelson see it as a patient’s compounder or a cyclically oversold opportunity, favoring its long-term potential or timing. But Fisher, Loeb, and even Marks (both cycle and general) temper enthusiasm, noting it lacks exceptional quality or is already priced for growth, leaving room for skepticism. The middle tier—including Lynch, Schwager, and the efficient-market duo—struggles to justify active selection over passive strategies, while Graham’s methods dismiss it outright for lacking defensive margins or statistical cheapness. Veblen’s low score flags it as a speculative growth play, further polarizing the debate between those who prioritize fundamentals and those who see fleeting market momentum.
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟢 81
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟢 73
Solid, but not the exceptional quality Fisher looked for
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟢 71
Reasonable capital-preservation profile
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 62
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 59
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
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)
🟡 57
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 43
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)
🟡 42
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 41
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 40
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
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 31
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
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 30
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
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
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 (2 bullish · 5 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.
A pattern consistent with an early/mid distribution phase — a trading range after an advance with declining volume.
Medium confidence
$81.16
Range Bottom
$93.91
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
78.0%
Operating Margin
20.8%
Net Margin
17.7%
EBITDA Margin
23.4%
ROE
10.4%
ROA
7.8%
ROIC
—
EPS
$1.84
Cash
$2.94B
Total Debt
$598.30M
Current Ratio
3.72
Debt/Equity
0.06
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$88.26
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$47.24
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-46.5%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
10.8%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 10.8% | $1.48B | $1.36B |
| 2 | 8.7% | $1.61B | $1.35B |
| 3 | 6.6% | $1.71B | $1.32B |
| 4 | 4.6% | $1.79B | $1.27B |
| 5 | 2.5% | $1.84B | $1.19B |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$1.33B
Terminal Value
$28.98B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$18.84B
Enterprise Value
$25.33B
Net Debt
$-2.34B
Equity Value
$27.67B
*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
$17.65
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$12.70
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 14 positive, 4 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
ChartMill · 16.9.2026
ChartMill · 16.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
ChartMill · 11.9.2026
ChartMill · 11.9.2026
MT Newswires · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
MedTech Dive · 11.9.2026
MT Newswires · 11.9.2026
Benzinga · 11.9.2026
Business Wire · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
Barchart · 8.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 7.9.2026
Edwards Lifesciences (EW) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 57/100, 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.
EW currently scores 57/100 (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, EW's estimated fair value is $47.24, which is 46.5% below the current price of $88.26. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
EW's technical score is 39/100, 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: Free cash flow growth: 360.5%; Operating margin is stable or improving over time; Debt/equity: 0.06.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $47.24 vs. price $88.26 (-46.5%); Calmar: 0.17 (3y annualized return 6.5% / max drawdown 37.5%); Earnings per share (EPS) growth: -73.7%.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for EW.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lippis Daniel J. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 11.9.2026 | 619 | +619 | $72.68 |
| Lippis Daniel J. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 11.9.2026 | 619 | -619 | — |
| Chopra Daveen | Tax Withholding in Shares | 11.9.2026 | 398 | -398 | $86.77 |
| Lippis Daniel J. | Open Market Sale | 11.9.2026 | 619 | -619 | $87.51 |
| Dahl Andrew M. | Open Market Sale | 31.8.2026 | 14,868 | -544 | $91.06 |
| Dahl Andrew M. | Open Market Sale | 31.8.2026 | 544 | -544 | $91.06 |
| Bruls Annette | Open Market Sale | 28.8.2026 | 17,984 | -2,644 | $89.98 |
| Bruls Annette | Open Market Sale | 28.8.2026 | 2,644 | -2,644 | $89.98 |
| Chopra Daveen | Open Market Sale | 26.8.2026 | 30,646 | -30,646 | $90.99 |
| Markowitz Wayne | Open Market Sale | 26.8.2026 | 1,240 | -1,240 | $91.47 |
| Chopra Daveen | Open Market Sale | 26.8.2026 | 1,154 | -1,154 | $91.76 |
| Chopra Daveen | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 26.8.2026 | 31,800 | -31,800 | — |
| Chopra Daveen | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 26.8.2026 | 31,800 | +31,800 | $72.68 |
| Chopra Daveen | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 26.8.2026 | 0 | -31,800 | — |
| Chopra Daveen | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 26.8.2026 | 76,124 | +31,800 | $72.68 |
| Chopra Daveen | Open Market Sale | 26.8.2026 | 44,324 | -30,646 | $90.99 |
| Markowitz Wayne | Open Market Sale | 26.8.2026 | 20,294 | -1,240 | $91.47 |
| Chopra Daveen | Open Market Sale | 26.8.2026 | 74,970 | -1,154 | $91.76 |
| Lippis Daniel J. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 11.8.2026 | 619 | +619 | $72.68 |
| Lippis Daniel J. | Open Market Sale | 11.8.2026 | 619 | -619 | $92.03 |
| Lippis Daniel J. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 11.8.2026 | 619 | -619 | — |
| Lippis Daniel J. | Open Market Sale | 11.8.2026 | 40,034 | -619 | $92.03 |
| Lippis Daniel J. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 11.8.2026 | 40,653 | +619 | $72.68 |
| Lippis Daniel J. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 11.8.2026 | 4,333 | -619 | — |
| Markowitz Wayne | Open Market Sale | 30.7.2026 | 146.313 | -146.313 | $86.03 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
9,022,064 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 10,043,721 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
47.1% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 43.1% 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