Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Technology · ·
$32.47
▼ $2.03 (-5.9%)
Market data updated: 09/19 09:12 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
$2.43B
Day Range
$32.14 - $34.75
52-Week Range
$13.29 - $35.31
Beta
—
Next Earnings
04.11.2026
Support
$20.76
Resistance
$35.31
FIVN is a stock from the Technology sector — Software, hardware, chip, and computing-services companies — revenue tied to the pace of innovation and upgrade cycles.
+22.2% (1Y)
Strengths: 14/27 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
🟡 Mixed
Technical Trend
🟢 Bullish
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $46.38 vs. price $32.47 (+42.9%)
Fair Value
Biggest negative driver
Daily volatility (ATR)
ATR: 5.6% of price
Risk
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
60
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
79
Quality
58
Value
57
Momentum
63
Risk
40
Sentiment
62
Fundamental
50
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 Five9, Inc. has centered on its financial performance and investor sentiment, highlighting four consecutive earnings beats that have sparked optimism. Analysts debate whether the company’s stock, which has declined sharply over five years, is undervalued despite strong fundamentals. The focus also includes Five9’s AI-driven cloud contact-center platform and its upcoming investor conference appearances, reinforcing its position as a leader in intelligent customer experience solutions.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Five9, Inc.. News trend score: 62. Reason: 9 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 7 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
25
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
41
Psychology
28
Fundamentals
50
Technical
63
Valuation
57
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.
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.
Price (3M)
+67%
Market Narrative
31
Fundamental Reality
41
Narrative Gap
-10
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior suggests detached euphoria—driven by extreme valuation gaps and perfect sentiment—but momentum remains modest. FOMO is muted by volume and RSI, while herding is absent as the stock diverges from peers. The key question is whether this narrative gap (54 vs. 41) will sustain or collapse under fundamental scrutiny. Overconfidence is absent despite the disconnect, implying traders may still anchor to recent gains rather than valuations.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 03:22 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"reported another quarter of earnings that exceeded analyst estimates and announced... heightened analyst optimism around Five9's outlook"
"stock looks discounted on fair value but premium on earnings"
"fresh attention to its cloud contact-center and AI capabilities"
"Five9 (FIVN) is at a 52-week high"
📈 9D 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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor) — 31/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark contrast between Walter Bagehot’s near-perfect score and the overwhelmingly negative verdicts from methodologies like Benjamin Graham’s Enterprising Investor or Jack Schwager’s disciplined wizards highlights a fundamental divide in how these investors evaluate FIVN. Bagehot’s focus on liquidity and resilience in credit crises suggests he’d see strength in the company’s ability to weather financial stress, while the majority—including Graham, Loeb, and Schwager—flag concerns like valuation, risk, or speculative patterns. Peter Lynch’s high growth score stands out as an outlier, implying he’d see untapped potential, whereas Fisher and Veblen’s mid-range scores reflect caution about whether growth translates to sustainable profitability. The efficient-market camp and Marks’ cycle analysis further complicate the picture, questioning whether active selection here beats passive benchmarks or if the stock is already priced for peak performance.
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)
🟢 86
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 62
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 59
Solid, but not the exceptional quality Fisher looked for
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 56
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 56
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 53
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)
🟡 50
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 47
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 46
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 46
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 45
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 40
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
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
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
Based on the last 282 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟢 Most indicators support an uptrend (5 bullish · 3 bearish · 2 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
55.1%
Operating Margin
2.5%
Net Margin
3.4%
EBITDA Margin
7.9%
ROE
5.0%
ROA
2.2%
ROIC
—
EPS
$0.51
Cash
$232.08M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
4.51
Debt/Equity
—
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$32.47
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$46.38
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
+42.9%
🟢 Appears cheap relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
13.9%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 13.9% | $229.17M | $210.24M |
| 2 | 11.0% | $254.44M | $214.16M |
| 3 | 8.2% | $275.28M | $212.56M |
| 4 | 5.3% | $289.99M | $205.43M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $297.24M | $193.18M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$201.24M
Terminal Value
$4.69B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$3.05B
Enterprise Value
$4.08B
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$4.08B
*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
$8.93
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$4.19
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 9 positive, 4 neutral, 7 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 12.9.2026
Motley Fool · 12.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Zacks · 11.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Zacks · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
Business Wire · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
StockStory · 8.9.2026
Benzinga · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 7.9.2026
Zacks · 7.9.2026
Five9, Inc. (FIVN) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 60/100, 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.
FIVN currently scores 60/100 (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, FIVN's estimated fair value is $46.38, which is 42.9% above the current price of $32.47. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
FIVN's technical score is 63/100, 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: Estimated fair value: $46.38 vs. price $32.47 (+42.9%); Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 364.7%; Free cash flow growth: 99.7%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: ATR: 5.6% of price; Calmar: -0.25 (3y annualized return -21.3% / max drawdown 84.1%); MACD histogram is negative — falling momentum.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for FIVN.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 21 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dignan Andy | Open Market Sale | 8.9.2026 | 2,746 | -2,746 | $31.57 |
| Meriweather Tiffany N. | Open Market Sale | 8.9.2026 | 5,114 | -5,114 | $31.55 |
| Lee Bryan M | Open Market Sale | 8.9.2026 | 1,310 | -1,310 | $32.60 |
| Mansharamani Leena | Open Market Sale | 8.9.2026 | 1,253 | -1,253 | $31.53 |
| Dignan Andy | Open Market Sale | 4.9.2026 | 3,295 | -3,295 | $33.45 |
| Lee Bryan M | Open Market Sale | 4.9.2026 | 7,813 | -7,813 | $33.52 |
| Lee Bryan M | Open Market Sale | 4.9.2026 | 4,995 | -4,995 | $33.45 |
| Lee Bryan M | Open Market Sale | 4.9.2026 | 6,500 | -6,500 | $33.05 |
| Meriweather Tiffany N. | Open Market Sale | 4.9.2026 | 5,600 | -5,600 | $33.02 |
| Dignan Andy | Open Market Sale | 4.9.2026 | 4,379 | -4,379 | $33.51 |
| Meriweather Tiffany N. | Open Market Sale | 4.9.2026 | 7,809 | -7,809 | $33.51 |
| Dignan Andy | Open Market Sale | 4.9.2026 | 2,900 | -2,900 | $33.00 |
| Mansharamani Leena | Open Market Sale | 4.9.2026 | 201 | -201 | $33.71 |
| Mansharamani Leena | Open Market Sale | 4.9.2026 | 2,505 | -2,505 | $33.32 |
| Mansharamani Leena | Open Market Sale | 3.9.2026 | 100 | -100 | $35.05 |
| Mansharamani Leena | Open Market Sale | 3.9.2026 | 2,558 | -2,558 | $34.19 |
| Dignan Andy | Open Market Sale | 28.8.2026 | 17,767 | -17,767 | $35.03 |
| Vijayaragavan Niranjan | Grant/Award from Employer | 13.7.2026 | 207,734 | +207,734 | — |
| Hornish Robert | Grant/Award from Employer | 13.7.2026 | 121,444 | +121,444 | — |
| Vijayaragavan Niranjan | Grant/Award from Employer | 13.7.2026 | 207,734 | +207,734 | — |
| Hornish Robert | Grant/Award from Employer | 13.7.2026 | 121,444 | +121,444 | — |
| Dignan Andy | Open Market Sale | 5.6.2026 | 3,073 | -3,073 | $24.25 |
| Lee Bryan M | Open Market Sale | 5.6.2026 | 1,511 | -1,511 | $24.25 |
| Dignan Andy | Open Market Sale | 5.6.2026 | 275,687 | -3,073 | $24.25 |
| Lee Bryan M | Open Market Sale | 5.6.2026 | 309,951 | -1,511 | $24.25 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
8,542,903 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 9,265,315 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
67.3% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 49.2% 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