Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Industrials · ·
$1,651.37
▲ $77.41 (+4.9%)
Market data updated: 09/19 05:04 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
$58.12B
Day Range
$1,581.00 - $1,659.53
52-Week Range
$757.00 - $2,073.99
Beta
—
Next Earnings
21.10.2026
Support
$1,491.24
Resistance
$1,883.70
FIX is a stock from the Industrials sector — Manufacturing, aerospace, defense, and infrastructure — closely tied to capital-investment cycles and economic growth.
+106.6% (1Y)
Strengths: 20/33 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
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Revenue growth (last year)
Revenue growth (last year): 29.5%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $766.82 vs. price $1,651.37 (-53.6%)
Fair Value
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (82/100), 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.
75/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
88/100
Analog Quality
+10.6%
Median 40D Outcome
23/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
87%
+5.1% … +24.5%
🟡 Base
0%
— … —
🔴 Bearish
13%
-26.4% … -13.7%
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, 87% (95% CI 62%–96%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of +8.8%.
Echo #1 — Momentum Breakout
1 occurrence(s) · 100% historical success
Echo #2 — Trend Acceleration
1 occurrence(s) · 100% 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 | 67% (42%–85%) | +2.5% | -0.2% … +5.8% | +0.7% |
| 10D | 80% (55%–93%) | +5.5% | +2.3% … +7.7% | +1.5% |
| 20D | 87% (62%–96%) | +8.8% | +4.6% … +24.0% | +3.1% |
| 40D | 80% (55%–93%) | +10.6% | +9.0% … +23.7% | +8.1% |
| 60D | 80% (55%–93%) | +21.2% | +11.9% … +29.1% | +13.5% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-01-23 | 75/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +9.4% | +21.2% |
| 2019-06-26 | 75/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +4.5% | -15.0% |
| 2021-10-01 | 74/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +23.5% | +34.2% |
| 2022-07-15 | 74/100 | Consolidation | +27.2% | +18.5% |
| 2022-05-23 | 73/100 | Downtrend | -7.4% | +28.1% |
| 2017-09-08 | 73/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +8.8% | +27.2% |
| 2020-02-20 | 72/100 | Consolidation | -32.7% | -37.6% |
| 2020-07-22 | 72/100 | Consolidation | +26.8% | +34.9% |
| 2018-05-01 | 72/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +13.2% | +16.9% |
| 2022-02-25 | 72/100 | Consolidation | +2.3% | -2.3% |
| 2020-07-06 | 71/100 | Consolidation | +24.5% | +26.2% |
| 2019-02-06 | 71/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +7.1% | +7.7% |
| 2020-12-01 | 70/100 | Consolidation | +5.1% | +30.7% |
| 2022-06-30 | 70/100 | Downtrend | +27.1% | +16.2% |
| 2024-07-22 | 69/100 | Consolidation | +4.7% | +30.1% |
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 XLI (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
68
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
82
Quality
63
Value
33
Momentum
70
Risk
56
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
73
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING FIX...
Recent media coverage of **Comfort Systems USA (FIX)** has centered on its strong stock performance and ties to broader industry trends. The company has been highlighted alongside other growth stocks—particularly in data center expansion and AI-driven demand—as a standout performer in construction and infrastructure sectors. Analysts note FIX’s outpacing of peers like Owens Corning, attributing its gains to resilient market conditions and sector-specific momentum, though no specific operational changes or major announcements are detailed.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Comfort Systems USA. News trend score: 100. Reason: 15 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 3 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
35
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
43
Psychology
52
Fundamentals
73
Technical
70
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.
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Price (3M)
-16%
Market Narrative
84
Fundamental Reality
43
Narrative Gap
+41
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s dominant overconfidence (score 45) stems from a disconnect between extreme valuation (+116% DCF) and weak price momentum (-5.1% vs. EPS growth). Euphoria (35) and loss aversion (39) reinforce this, as traders may overlook fundamentals while holding onto losses. The narrative gap (28) further amplifies this bias, as perception (71) diverges sharply from reality (43). The key question is whether traders will adjust expectations when momentum or fundamentals diverge further—or if sentiment remains anchored by positive news (100/100).
Updated: 09/08/2026, 06:37 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"AI-driven demand, record backlogs and data center growth are powering five growth stocks"
"Has Comfort Systems (FIX) Outpaced Other Construction Stocks This Year?"
"Comfort Systems (FIX) closed at $1, indicating a +1.29% shift from the previous trading day"
📈 15D 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
Peter Lynch — 94/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor) — 13/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock splits methodologies into two starkly opposing camps: the bullish growth-oriented investors and the cautious, value-driven skeptics. Peter Lynch and Edgar Lawrence Smith both rate it near-perfectly (94), seeing it as a long-term, high-growth opportunity where the price hasn’t yet reflected its potential—Smith even calling it a 'buy and hold for a decade' candidate. Philip Fisher and Thorstein Veblen also lean positive (81 and 71), praising its quality and alignment with real value creation, though with slightly more nuance. Meanwhile, the value and contrarian camp—led by Benjamin Graham (13 and 17) and Jesse Livermore (12)—rejects it outright, with Graham calling it statistically uncheap and Livermore flagging a negative trend. The middle ground, represented by Howard Marks (46) and Jack Schwager (47), acknowledges the stock’s merits but warns of overpriced expectations or a lack of clear edge, while the efficient-market theorists (41) dismiss it as unworthy of active picking over passive indexing.
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 94
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 94
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟢 81
Exceptional company quality by Fisher's standards
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟢 71
Growth appears aligned with real value creation
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 63
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 60
Adequate but not exceptional liquidity
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 57
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 48
Some signs of crowd excitement building
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)
🟡 48
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 45
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
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)
🟡 39
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 35
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🔴 24
Cycle looks stretched toward overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 17
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 13
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 300 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟢 Most indicators support an uptrend (8 bullish · 2 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 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
24.1%
Operating Margin
14.4%
Net Margin
11.2%
EBITDA Margin
15.1%
ROE
41.8%
ROA
15.9%
ROIC
—
EPS
$28.93
Cash
$981.90M
Total Debt
$145.23M
Current Ratio
1.21
Debt/Equity
0.06
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 13.8.2026 | $0.900 |
| 15.5.2026 | $0.800 |
| 14.5.2026 | $0.800 |
| 6.3.2026 | $0.700 |
| 5.3.2026 | $0.700 |
| 13.11.2025 | $0.600 |
| 12.11.2025 | $0.600 |
| 14.8.2025 | $0.500 |
| 13.8.2025 | $0.500 |
| 16.5.2025 | $0.450 |
| 15.5.2025 | $0.450 |
| 10.3.2025 | $0.400 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$1,651.37
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$766.82
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-53.6%
🔴 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% | $1.29B | $1.18B |
| 2 | 19.4% | $1.54B | $1.30B |
| 3 | 13.8% | $1.75B | $1.35B |
| 4 | 8.1% | $1.89B | $1.34B |
| 5 | 2.5% | $1.94B | $1.26B |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$1.03B
Terminal Value
$30.60B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$19.89B
Enterprise Value
$26.32B
Net Debt
$-836.67M
Equity Value
$27.16B
*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
$69.15
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$26.49
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 15 positive, 2 neutral, 3 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
ChartMill · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
ChartMill · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 14.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
Zacks · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
ChartMill · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 12.9.2026
StockStory · 12.9.2026
ChartMill · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Comfort Systems USA (FIX) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 68/100, 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.
FIX currently scores 68/100 (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, FIX's estimated fair value is $766.82, which is 53.6% below the current price of $1,651.37. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
FIX's technical score is 70/100, 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: Revenue growth (last year): 29.5%; Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 97.8%; Free cash flow growth: 39.8%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $766.82 vs. price $1,651.37 (-53.6%); ATR: 4.9% of price; Price is below the 50-day average.
Yes — FIX 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 9 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lane Brian E. | Open Market Sale | 26.8.2026 | 145,065 | -16,024 | $1,608.21 |
| Lane Brian E. | Open Market Sale | 26.8.2026 | 16,024 | -16,024 | $1,608.21 |
| GEORGE WILLIAM III | Open Market Sale | 17.8.2026 | 2,554 | -2,554 | $1,859.65 |
| MYERS FRANKLIN | Open Market Sale | 11.8.2026 | 4,000 | -4,000 | $1,693.92 |
| MYERS FRANKLIN | Open Market Sale | 10.8.2026 | 3,500 | -3,500 | $1,690.47 |
| MYERS FRANKLIN | Open Market Sale | 24.6.2026 | 6,700 | -6,700 | $1,954.47 |
| MYERS FRANKLIN | Open Market Sale | 24.6.2026 | 62,115 | -6,700 | $1,954.47 |
| Hardy Rhoman J | Open Market Sale | 27.5.2026 | 342 | -342 | $1,900.08 |
| Hardy Rhoman J | Open Market Sale | 27.5.2026 | 1,890 | -342 | $1,900.08 |
| MYERS FRANKLIN | Gift | 21.5.2026 | 273 | -273 | — |
| MYERS FRANKLIN | Gift | 21.5.2026 | 68,815 | -273 | — |
| Skidmore Constance Ellen | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.5.2026 | 105 | +105 | — |
| Wallis-Lage Cindy L. | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.5.2026 | 105 | +105 | — |
| SANDBROOK WILLIAM J | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.5.2026 | 105 | +105 | — |
| Mercado, Pablo G. | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.5.2026 | 105 | +105 | — |
| BULLS HERMAN E | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.5.2026 | 105 | +105 | — |
| Kapoor Gaurav | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.5.2026 | 105 | +105 | — |
| ANDERSON DARCY | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.5.2026 | 105 | +105 | — |
| MYERS FRANKLIN | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.5.2026 | 105 | +105 | — |
| Hardy Rhoman J | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.5.2026 | 105 | +105 | — |
| ANDERSON DARCY | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.5.2026 | 18,140 | +105 | — |
| BULLS HERMAN E | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.5.2026 | 29,879 | +105 | — |
| MYERS FRANKLIN | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.5.2026 | 69,088 | +105 | — |
| SANDBROOK WILLIAM J | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.5.2026 | 7,771 | +105 | — |
| Mercado, Pablo G. | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.5.2026 | 3,105 | +105 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
910,248 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 695,921 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
54.1% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 58.2% 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