Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Technology · ·
$36.10
▼ $0.73 (-2.0%)
Market data updated: 09/26 11:33 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/26/2026
News analyzed: 09/26/2026
Market Cap
$2.76B
Day Range
$36.02 - $37.17
52-Week Range
$19.01 - $47.93
Beta
—
Next Earnings
02.11.2026
Support
$25.56
Resistance
$44.33
INTA is a stock from the Technology sector — Software, hardware, chip, and computing-services companies — revenue tied to the pace of innovation and upgrade cycles.
-14.1% (1Y)
Strengths: 7/28 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
🔴 Bearish
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $40.33 vs. price $36.10 (+11.7%)
Fair Value
Biggest negative driver
Operating margin
Operating margin: -6.9% (negative)
Fundamental
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
46
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
48
Quality
58
Value
62
Momentum
29
Risk
26
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
26
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 Intapp, Inc. has centered on its aggressive expansion into the legal sector through AI-driven partnerships and client wins. The company announced new deals with firms like Practus LLP and Auxana, integrating its AI-native workflows—such as Intapp Walls, DealCloud, and Celeste—into legal operations. Highlighted as a growth driver, Intapp’s 120%+ net retention and Microsoft partnership were also noted alongside a stock rally (up 77% in 90 days) despite a recent executive share sale. The focus remains on its AI integration and enterprise SaaS momentum.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Intapp, Inc.. News trend score: 100. Reason: 12 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
23
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
41
Psychology
48
Fundamentals
26
Technical
29
Valuation
62
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.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price (3M)
+44%
Market Narrative
48
Fundamental Reality
41
Narrative Gap
+7
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant Herding state (81) suggests traders are aligning with peers after INTA lagged its sector (-3.2% vs -3.9%). While FOMO (23) hints at cautious momentum-driven interest, the Euphoria (37) score reflects lingering optimism due to strong valuation metrics (e.g., +57.1% above 200-day average). The Overconfidence (10) score indicates traders may overvalue recent price gains relative to fundamentals. The key question: *Will traders double down on relative underperformance, or will the narrative gap (17) widen as fundamentals diverge?*
Updated: 09/07/2026, 11:04 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Intapp’s push to embed agentic AI and zero-entry data capture across core legal workflows, positioning its platform more deeply within law firm operations and compliance"
"strong SaaS growth, 120%+ net retention, low-churn enterprise clients"
"a senior executive executed a preplanned share sale that still leaves a large personal stake in the business"
"software companies trading lower amid overall market weakness after President Trump’s tariff announcement"
📈 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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — 88/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor) — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock splits the historical methodologies into three clear camps: those who see *some* merit but not enough to commit (like Jesse Livermore’s 62, Fisher’s 54, or Smith’s 54), those who view it as a neutral or borderline hold (such as Schwager’s 49 or Housel’s 45), and those who would outright avoid it due to red flags. The cautious camp—including Livermore, Fisher, and Smith—suggests the stock has *some* technical or qualitative appeal but lacks the decisive edge or exceptional quality to justify a strong bet. Meanwhile, the neutral group (like Nelson or Malkiel/Bogle) sees it as neither a slam dunk nor a clear mispricing, reflecting a lack of strong conviction. The final group—from Marks (34) to Graham (12)—flags serious concerns, whether around valuation, risk, or structural weaknesses, painting a picture of a stock that fails basic defensive or fundamental thresholds. The divergence stems from whether the methodology prioritizes *relative* attractiveness (e.g., Fisher’s 54) or absolute safety (e.g., Graham’s 0), creating a spectrum from ‘maybe worth a look’ to ‘dangerous territory.’
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 88
Cycle position looks favorable — closer to oversold than overbought
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)
🟢 65
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)
🟡 54
Solid, but not the exceptional quality Fisher looked for
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 54
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 54
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 46
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 45
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)
🟡 45
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 39
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 36
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 21
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)
🔴 21
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 14
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 8
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 0
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?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 45%
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 a downtrend (2 bullish · 9 bearish · 0 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
75.8%
Operating Margin
-6.9%
Net Margin
-7.1%
EBITDA Margin
-3.9%
ROE
-13.0%
ROA
-5.5%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$0.52
Cash
$162.81M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
0.78
Debt/Equity
—
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$36.10
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$40.33
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
+11.7%
🟢 Appears cheap relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
18.1%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 18.1% | $170.95M | $156.84M |
| 2 | 14.2% | $195.28M | $164.36M |
| 3 | 10.3% | $215.43M | $166.35M |
| 4 | 6.4% | $229.23M | $162.39M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $234.96M | $152.71M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$144.71M
Terminal Value
$3.71B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$2.41B
Enterprise Value
$3.21B
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$3.21B
*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
$3.99
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$0.47
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 12 positive, 6 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 26.9.2026
Yahoo · 24.9.2026
Yahoo · 24.9.2026
Yahoo · 22.9.2026
Yahoo · 21.9.2026
Benzinga · 21.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 18.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
ChartMill · 15.9.2026
Benzinga · 15.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
Business Wire · 9.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 7.9.2026
Simply Wall St. · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
Simply Wall St. · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
Intapp, Inc. (INTA) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 46/100, 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.
INTA currently scores 46/100 (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, INTA's estimated fair value is $40.33, which is 11.7% above the current price of $36.10. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
INTA's technical score is 29/100, 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: Estimated fair value: $40.33 vs. price $36.10 (+11.7%); Operating margin is stable or improving over time; Price is above the 200-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Operating margin: -6.9% (negative); Net margin: -7.1% (negative); ATR: 4.4% of price.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for INTA.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 13 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HALL JOHN T | Open Market Sale | 21.9.2026 | 5,814,808 | -3,000 | $36.74 |
| HALL JOHN T | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 21.9.2026 | 5,817,808 | +3,000 | $7.45 |
| HALL JOHN T | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 21.9.2026 | 67,000 | -3,000 | — |
| HALL JOHN T | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 14.9.2026 | 70,000 | -3,000 | — |
| HALL JOHN T | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 14.9.2026 | 5,817,808 | +3,000 | $7.45 |
| HALL JOHN T | Open Market Sale | 14.9.2026 | 5,814,808 | -3,000 | $37.93 |
| HALL JOHN T | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 8.9.2026 | 73,000 | -3,000 | — |
| HALL JOHN T | Open Market Sale | 8.9.2026 | 5,814,808 | -3,000 | $39.59 |
| HALL JOHN T | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 8.9.2026 | 5,817,808 | +3,000 | $7.45 |
| Jampol Thad | Open Market Sale | 2.9.2026 | 933,585 | -1,196 | $42.25 |
| Jampol Thad | Open Market Sale | 2.9.2026 | 934,781 | -3,804 | $41.66 |
| Jampol Thad | Open Market Sale | 2.9.2026 | 3,804 | -3,804 | $41.66 |
| Jampol Thad | Open Market Sale | 2.9.2026 | 1,196 | -1,196 | $42.25 |
| HALL JOHN T | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 31.8.2026 | 76,000 | -3,000 | — |
| HALL JOHN T | Open Market Sale | 31.8.2026 | 5,814,808 | -3,000 | $43.27 |
| HALL JOHN T | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 31.8.2026 | 5,817,808 | +3,000 | $7.45 |
| HALL JOHN T | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 31.8.2026 | 3,000 | -3,000 | — |
| HALL JOHN T | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 31.8.2026 | 3,000 | +3,000 | $7.45 |
| HALL JOHN T | Open Market Sale | 31.8.2026 | 3,000 | -3,000 | $43.27 |
| MORTON DAVID H JR | Open Market Sale | 24.8.2026 | 10,000 | -10,000 | $40.88 |
| Sedgwick Dustin de Forest | Open Market Sale | 24.8.2026 | 1,200 | -1,200 | $41.33 |
| Sedgwick Dustin de Forest | Open Market Sale | 24.8.2026 | 274 | -274 | $40.71 |
| HALL JOHN T | Open Market Sale | 24.8.2026 | 18,957 | -18,957 | $40.86 |
| HALL JOHN T | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 24.8.2026 | 3,000 | -3,000 | — |
| HALL JOHN T | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 24.8.2026 | 3,000 | +3,000 | $7.45 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
2,988,392 shares short as of 2026-09-15 · vs. 3,282,604 on 2026-08-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
40.0% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 41.8% 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