Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Discretionary · ·
$13.42
▲ $0.93 (+7.4%)
Market data updated: 09/26 04:57 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/26/2026
News analyzed: 09/26/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
$12.51 - $13.45
52-Week Range
$6.53 - $17.48
Beta
—
Next Earnings
04.11.2026
Support
$9.17
Resistance
$16.38
FIGS is a stock from the Consumer Cyclical sector — Retail, automotive, and leisure — demand rises and falls with economic sentiment and consumers' disposable income.
+104.3% (1Y)
Strengths: 11/27 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
🟢 Bullish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Earnings per share (EPS) growth
Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 850.0%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $5.24 vs. price $13.42 (-60.9%)
Fair Value
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (65/100), but fair-value analysis scores this stock as relatively expensive (33/100) — the growth story and the current price aren't fully aligned.
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
NO RELIABLE ECHO FOUND
Only 3 historical analog(s) found after removing overlapping dates — too few for a statistically meaningful comparison.
Historical matches considered: 3
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
59
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
65
Quality
42
Value
33
Momentum
64
Risk
48
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
58
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 FIGS, Inc. has highlighted its accelerating international growth, with Q2 international sales rising 67% due to robust global demand, localized marketing efforts, and expansion into new markets. The focus remains on the company’s successful global scaling amid broader industry discussions about small-cap stocks and their risks. No other specific details about FIGS were provided in the sources.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about FIGS, Inc.. News trend score: 100. Reason: 16 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 1 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
29
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
36
Psychology
45
Fundamentals
58
Technical
64
Valuation
33
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.
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.
Price (3M)
+16%
Market Narrative
78
Fundamental Reality
36
Narrative Gap
+42
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior suggests a disconnect between fundamentals and valuation, with overconfidence (45) and euphoria (43) dominating. Investors appear to overlook weak momentum (-0.5% ROC) while ignoring a 175% premium to DCF, consistent with overvaluation bias. The extreme narrative gap (40) implies optimism far exceeds reality, raising the question of whether sentiment will sustain itself or correct. The lack of herding or panic signals suggests complacency despite underperformance relative to peers.
Updated: 09/07/2026, 03:27 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"smaller size also means these businesses often lack the resilience and financial flexibility of large-cap firms"
"FIGS' global expansion gains pace as Q2 international sales surge 67%"
📈 3D 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
Morgan Housel — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for FIGS reflects deep methodological disagreements about what makes a stock attractive. Walter Bagehot’s near-perfect score highlights his focus on liquidity and resilience, suggesting the stock could weather financial stress—an approach that prioritizes stability over growth. Meanwhile, Peter Lynch’s high score leans into his growth-at-a-reasonable-price philosophy, implying the stock’s price hasn’t yet reflected its potential, while Samuel Armstrong Nelson’s moderate score points to a cyclical opportunity where the market may have temporarily undervalued the asset. On the other end, Fisher, Graham, and Housel’s low scores stem from strict valuation, quality, and volatility thresholds, dismissing it as either overpriced, lacking fundamentals, or too risky for long-term patience. The middle-ground methodologies—like Marks’ cycle view or Schwager’s neutral stance—reflect uncertainty, balancing cautious optimism with insufficient edge, while the efficient-market camp sees no clear alpha signal.
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 81
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 59
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 54
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 49
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 43
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 43
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 43
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
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 39
Doesn't show the stability Smith's long-term case requires
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 31
Risk/valuation combination Marks would flag as a caution sign
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
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)
🔴 26
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 22
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 18
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
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 287 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟢 Most indicators support an uptrend (5 bullish · 2 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
66.5%
Operating Margin
6.0%
Net Margin
5.4%
EBITDA Margin
7.5%
ROE
7.8%
ROA
5.9%
ROIC
—
EPS
$0.21
Cash
$81.98M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
4.94
Debt/Equity
—
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$13.42
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$5.24
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-60.9%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
7.8%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 7.8% | $57.12M | $52.40M |
| 2 | 6.4% | $60.80M | $51.17M |
| 3 | 5.1% | $63.92M | $49.36M |
| 4 | 3.8% | $66.36M | $47.01M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $68.01M | $44.20M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$53.00M
Terminal Value
$1.07B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$697.07M
Enterprise Value
$941.21M
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$941.21M
*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
$2.44
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$2.44
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 16 positive, 3 neutral, 1 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Zacks · 25.9.2026
Zacks · 24.9.2026
Zacks · 23.9.2026
Zacks · 23.9.2026
Zacks · 22.9.2026
Zacks · 22.9.2026
Zacks · 21.9.2026
Zacks · 21.9.2026
Zacks · 18.9.2026
Zacks · 18.9.2026
Zacks · 17.9.2026
Zacks · 16.9.2026
Zacks · 16.9.2026
Zacks · 16.9.2026
Zacks · 16.9.2026
Zacks · 15.9.2026
Zacks · 14.9.2026
Zacks · 14.9.2026
Zacks · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
FIGS, Inc. (FIGS) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 59/100, 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.
FIGS currently scores 59/100 (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, FIGS's estimated fair value is $5.24, which is 60.9% below the current price of $13.42. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
FIGS's technical score is 64/100, 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: Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 850.0%; Net income growth: 1159.2%; Current ratio: 4.94.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $5.24 vs. price $13.42 (-60.9%); Operating margin is eroding over time; ATR: 5.2% of price.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for FIGS.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oughtred Sarah | Tax Withholding in Shares | 5.8.2026 | 21,962 | -21,962 | $10.92 |
| Hasson Heather L. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 5.8.2026 | 30,142 | -30,142 | $10.92 |
| Oughtred Sarah | Tax Withholding in Shares | 5.8.2026 | 1,088,165 | -21,962 | $10.92 |
| Hasson Heather L. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 5.8.2026 | 1,396,852 | -30,142 | $10.92 |
| Spear Catherine Eva | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.7.2026 | 61,556 | -61,556 | $10.05 |
| Oughtred Sarah | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.7.2026 | 22,197 | -22,197 | $10.05 |
| Hasson Heather L. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.7.2026 | 6,813 | -6,813 | $10.05 |
| Spear Catherine Eva | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.7.2026 | 1,733,408 | -61,556 | $10.05 |
| Hasson Heather L. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.7.2026 | 1,426,994 | -6,813 | $10.05 |
| Oughtred Sarah | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.7.2026 | 1,110,127 | -22,197 | $10.05 |
| Lin Kenneth Jian-Hong | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.6.2026 | 15,456 | +15,456 | — |
| Willhite John Martin | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.6.2026 | 15,456 | +15,456 | — |
| Antrum Sheila | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.6.2026 | 15,456 | +15,456 | — |
| Jao Hsiao Yueh | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.6.2026 | 15,456 | +15,456 | — |
| WHELAN MELANIE ANYA | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.6.2026 | 15,456 | +15,456 | — |
| Marte Mario Jesus | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.6.2026 | 15,456 | +15,456 | — |
| WILKE JEFFREY A | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.6.2026 | 15,456 | +15,456 | — |
| WILKE JEFFREY A | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.6.2026 | 227,577 | +15,456 | — |
| Marte Mario Jesus | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.6.2026 | 86,046 | +15,456 | — |
| WHELAN MELANIE ANYA | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.6.2026 | 55,683 | +15,456 | — |
| Antrum Sheila | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.6.2026 | 115,663 | +15,456 | — |
| Willhite John Martin | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.6.2026 | 3,263,095 | +15,456 | — |
| Lin Kenneth Jian-Hong | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.6.2026 | 161,705 | +15,456 | — |
| Jao Hsiao Yueh | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.6.2026 | 97,719 | +15,456 | — |
| WHELAN MELANIE ANYA | Grant/Award from Employer | 12.5.2026 | 22,863 | +22,863 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
16,697,075 shares short as of 2026-09-15 · vs. 17,066,482 on 2026-08-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
55.0% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 62.0% 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