Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Industrials · ·
$24.36
▲ $1.27 (+5.5%)
Market data updated: 09/26 06:36 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/26/2026
News analyzed: 09/26/2026
Market Cap
$4.08B
Day Range
$23.30 - $25.58
52-Week Range
$16.00 - $62.17
Beta
—
Next Earnings
—
Support
$17.71
Resistance
$28.20
FLY is a stock from the Industrials sector — Manufacturing, aerospace, defense, and infrastructure — closely tied to capital-investment cycles and economic growth.
-43.1% (1Y)
Strengths: 15/33 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
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Revenue growth (last year)
Revenue growth (last year): 163.0%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: -$76.30 vs. price $24.36 (-413.2%)
Fair Value
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
51
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
54
Quality
63
Value
38
Momentum
62
Risk
46
Sentiment
80
Fundamental
26
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 Firefly Aerospace has highlighted supply constraints and market competition in the aerospace sector, with CEO Jason Kim emphasizing a shortage of rocket capacity for both government and commercial missions. The company’s dual focus on space and defense applications, including AI-driven advancements for lunar and missile defense projects, has also been noted. Comparisons with rivals like SpaceX and AST SpaceMobile further underscore Firefly’s position amid broader industry shifts.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Firefly Aerospace Inc.. News trend score: 80. Reason: 9 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 4 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
27
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
54
Psychology
31
Fundamentals
26
Technical
62
Valuation
38
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.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
Price (3M)
-10%
Market Narrative
57
Fundamental Reality
54
Narrative Gap
+3
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
FLY’s psychology is overwhelmingly shaped by loss aversion, with a 93 score reflecting deep price erosion (-41.7% over three months) and subdued trading activity. The near-zero FOMO (10) and Euphoria (19) scores—despite positive news—highlight a market that prioritizes protecting capital over chasing gains. The narrative-reality gap (-2) suggests minor misalignment, but the dominant psychological state remains anchored in risk aversion. The key question: *Will traders exit further or hold for a rebound?*
Updated: 09/05/2026, 05:06 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"demand for government and commercial constellations and missions outstrips the rocket capacity available"
"Planet Labs flags SpaceX rideshare crunch as smaller operators seek alternatives"
"AI developed for Moon missions is strengthening Firefly’s defense business"
📈 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
Peter Lynch — 94/100
🔴 Weakest match
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — 16/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide among methodologies, with the highest scores from value and cyclical investors—Benjamin Graham’s Defensive Investor (95), Peter Lynch’s growth play (94), and Samuel Nelson’s cycle analysis (92)—all seeing it as a compelling opportunity, whether for undervaluation, overlooked growth, or a favorable market position. Meanwhile, the more cautious or contrarian voices like Howard Marks (58), Morgan Housel (31), and Jesse Livermore (21) flag concerns: Marks warns of potentially inflated expectations, Housel highlights volatility risks, and Livermore’s trend-following rule outright rejects it. Even Fisher (48) and the Efficient Market proponents (49) dismiss it as lacking the signature traits they prioritize, while Veblen’s (21) critique suggests it may be driven by speculative rather than fundamental drivers. The contrast underscores how value, growth, and cyclical strategies align on optimism, while behavioral and trend-based approaches remain deeply skeptical.
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟢 92
Attractive to a Defensive Graham Investor
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 80
Strong liquidity — would likely survive a real credit squeeze
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 76
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 73
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟢 66
Some discount, but not the deep 'net-net' bargain Graham's enterprising bar sets
Key question
Is the stock statistically cheap enough to justify the extra risk?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 45%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 63
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)
🟡 62
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)
🟡 53
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 48
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 33
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 32
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 31
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 30
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🔴 16
Cycle looks stretched toward overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 285 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟢 Most indicators support an uptrend (7 bullish · 4 bearish · 1 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.
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
19.2%
Operating Margin
-163.1%
Net Margin
-186.6%
EBITDA Margin
-148.6%
ROE
-25.1%
ROA
-16.3%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$4.83
Cash
$792.97M
Total Debt
$7.10M
Current Ratio
4.51
Debt/Equity
0.01
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$24.36
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$76.30
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-413.2%
🔴 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% | $-297.19M | $-272.65M |
| 2 | 19.4% | $-354.77M | $-298.60M |
| 3 | 13.8% | $-403.55M | $-311.61M |
| 4 | 8.1% | $-436.34M | $-309.11M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-447.24M | $-290.68M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-237.75M
Terminal Value
$-7.05B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-4.58B
Enterprise Value
$-6.07B
Net Debt
$-785.87M
Equity Value
$-5.28B
*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
$17.19
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$8.30
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 9 positive, 7 neutral, 4 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Benzinga · 26.9.2026
Yahoo · 25.9.2026
Yahoo · 25.9.2026
Yahoo · 25.9.2026
Yahoo · 25.9.2026
Benzinga · 24.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 24.9.2026
Benzinga · 24.9.2026
Yahoo · 22.9.2026
Yahoo · 22.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 22.9.2026
Yahoo · 21.9.2026
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Benzinga · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 12.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
Firefly Aerospace Inc. (FLY) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 51/100, 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.
FLY currently scores 51/100 (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, FLY's estimated fair value is -$76.30, which is 413.2% below the current price of $24.36. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
FLY's technical score is 62/100, 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): 163.0%; Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 76.7%; Operating margin is stable or improving over time.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: -$76.30 vs. price $24.36 (-413.2%); Operating margin: -163.1% (negative); Net margin: -186.6% (negative).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for FLY.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kim Jesung | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 22.9.2026 | 588,462 | -43,278 | — |
| Kim Jesung | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 22.9.2026 | 898,738 | +43,278 | $2.31 |
| Ma Darren | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 17.9.2026 | 0 | -54,286 | — |
| Ma Darren | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 17.9.2026 | 296,664 | +54,286 | $0.42 |
| Ma Darren | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 17.9.2026 | 329,897 | +33,233 | $0.49 |
| Ma Darren | Tax Withholding in Shares | 16.9.2026 | 242,378 | -18,309 | $20.28 |
| Wu Remington | Tax Withholding in Shares | 16.9.2026 | 38,596 | -1,827 | $20.28 |
| Kim Jesung | Tax Withholding in Shares | 16.9.2026 | 855,460 | -86,265 | $20.28 |
| Ferring Russell Shea | Tax Withholding in Shares | 16.9.2026 | 525,424 | -16,700 | $20.28 |
| Ma Darren | Tax Withholding in Shares | 24.8.2026 | 260,687 | -256 | $23.10 |
| Boland Ryan Michael | Other Transaction | 14.8.2026 | 0 | -40,821 | — |
| Boland Ryan Michael | Other Transaction | 14.8.2026 | 127,156 | +3,193 | — |
| Boland Ryan Michael | Other Transaction | 14.8.2026 | 40,821 | -40,821 | — |
| Boland Ryan Michael | Other Transaction | 14.8.2026 | 3,193 | +3,193 | — |
| O'Konek Nathan | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.8.2026 | 103,154 | +103,154 | — |
| O'Konek Nathan | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.8.2026 | 103,154 | +103,154 | — |
| Zurbuchen Thomas Hansueli | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.6.2026 | 3,630 | +3,630 | — |
| Braden Pamela Joyce | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.6.2026 | 3,630 | +3,630 | — |
| Lusczakoski Jonathan Donald | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.6.2026 | 3,630 | +3,630 | — |
| Emerson Christopher Plummer IV | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.6.2026 | 3,630 | +3,630 | — |
| McAllister Kevin G | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.6.2026 | 3,630 | +3,630 | — |
| Konert Kirk Michael | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.6.2026 | 3,630 | +3,630 | — |
| Boland Ryan Michael | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.6.2026 | 3,630 | +3,630 | — |
| McAllister Kevin G | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.6.2026 | 6,964 | +3,630 | — |
| Konert Kirk Michael | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.6.2026 | 10,297 | +3,630 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
11,105,681 shares short as of 2026-09-15 · vs. 10,819,717 on 2026-08-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
51.7% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 50.4% 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