Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$266.42
▼ $3.02 (-1.1%)
Market data updated: 09/21 10:54 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/20/2026
News analyzed: 09/21/2026
Market Cap
$44.47B
Day Range
$264.88 - $269.45
52-Week Range
$154.50 - $273.88
Beta
—
Next Earnings
26.10.2026
Support
$197.60
Resistance
$273.88
IQV is a stock from the Healthcare sector — Pharmaceuticals, biotech, medical devices, and health insurance — less sensitive to economic cycles, but exposed to regulation and FDA approvals.
+40.1% (1Y)
Strengths: 12/30 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
Operating margin stability
Operating margin is stable or improving over time
Quality
Biggest negative driver
Liquidity risk
Current ratio: 0.75
Risk
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
80/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
90/100
Analog Quality
-2.8%
Median 40D Outcome
28/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
47%
+1.8% … +5.4%
🟡 Base
0%
— … —
🔴 Bearish
53%
-25.4% … -2.5%
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, 47% (95% CI 25%–70%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of -1.7%.
Echo #1 — Trend Acceleration
14 occurrence(s) · 50% 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 | 20% (7%–45%) | -3.0% | -3.7% … -1.3% | +0.2% |
| 10D | 33% (15%–58%) | -1.2% | -2.7% … +1.9% | +0.6% |
| 20D | 47% (25%–70%) | -1.7% | -9.0% … +2.8% | +1.2% |
| 40D | 47% (25%–70%) | -2.8% | -13.7% … +4.9% | +3.2% |
| 60D | 40% (20%–64%) | -10.4% | -20.2% … +8.2% | +4.5% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-01-28 | 80/100 | Uptrend | -28.8% | -32.3% |
| 2019-07-25 | 79/100 | Uptrend | -2.2% | -10.4% |
| 2021-03-01 | 79/100 | Uptrend | -1.7% | +24.6% |
| 2021-05-27 | 79/100 | Uptrend | +3.3% | +7.1% |
| 2025-12-05 | 79/100 | Uptrend | +6.5% | -21.0% |
| 2025-10-29 | 78/100 | Uptrend | +6.4% | +10.7% |
| 2019-03-13 | 78/100 | Uptrend | +2.3% | -2.0% |
| 2024-03-18 | 78/100 | Uptrend | -9.7% | -14.3% |
| 2026-01-12 | 78/100 | Uptrend | -24.3% | -29.8% |
| 2025-11-14 | 78/100 | ✓ Uptrend | +1.4% | -23.5% |
| 2020-02-19 | 77/100 | Uptrend | -45.3% | -19.5% |
| 2020-08-13 | 77/100 | Uptrend | -2.6% | +4.7% |
| 2020-10-23 | 77/100 | Uptrend | +1.4% | +12.1% |
| 2021-01-04 | 76/100 | Uptrend | +4.4% | +9.4% |
| 2024-09-05 | 75/100 | ✓ Uptrend | -8.4% | -19.1% |
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 XLV (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
63
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
50
Momentum
84
Risk
28
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
49
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING IQV...
Recent media coverage of IQVIA has primarily centered on its **Q2 earnings performance and financial outlook**, with analysts evaluating whether to recommend buying, selling, or holding its stock. The company’s **predictive clinical development tools** and **efficiencies in accelerating drug approvals** were highlighted as key strengths. Additionally, IQVIA’s **Veev division** received attention for its **AI-driven CRM advancements and fiscal 2027 revenue growth projections**. Analysts also adjusted IQVIA’s price target upward, reflecting optimism about its fundamentals.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about IQVIA. News trend score: 100. Reason: 11 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 0 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
42
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
40
Psychology
47
Fundamentals
49
Technical
84
Valuation
50
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
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.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price (3M)
+59%
Market Narrative
68
Fundamental Reality
40
Narrative Gap
+28
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior suggests a dominant herding dynamic, where traders are aligning with peer underperformance rather than independent analysis. Euphoria lingers due to strong momentum and extreme sentiment, but the gap between narrative optimism (65) and reality (40) hints at potential mispricing. Overconfidence is low but present, as price momentum outpaces fundamentals. The key open question is whether the herding behavior reflects a corrective pullback or a temporary misalignment with underlying fundamentals. The narrative-reality gap may signal impending reversion if fundamentals fail to justify current valuations.
Updated: 09/08/2026, 11:07 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"adjusted earnings rising 12.1% year over year and revenue increasing 8.7%, prompting management to raise its 2026 revenue, adjusted EBITDA and adjusted diluted earnings guidance"
"HSBC Adjusts Price Target on IQVIA Holdings to $300 From $280, Maintains Buy Rating"
"strong bookings and contributions from acquisitions, all of which reinforced management’s view that business momentum can be sustained into 2027"
"Q2 earnings season... best performers in the drug development inputs & services industry, including IQVIA"
📈 11D 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
Jesse Livermore — 61/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor) — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The methodologies here split sharply between passive index alignment and outright rejection of IQV, reflecting starkly different priorities. Burton Malkiel and John Bogle’s efficient-market approach gives it a modest 66 score, suggesting it might justify a slight deviation from a broad index—likely because it doesn’t outright violate core market efficiency assumptions. Meanwhile, the majority of strategies—from Benjamin Graham’s defensive criteria (0) to Howard Marks’ risk-focused warnings (15) and Peter Lynch’s growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar (19)—pile up with low scores, flagging issues like overvaluation, volatility, or structural risks. Even Jack Schwager and Jesse Livermore’s neutral stances contrast with the outright red flags from Mackay (37) and Loeb (22), who see it as either a speculative bubble or a high-risk speculative play. The divide underscores whether the stock’s perceived merits (like growth potential) outweigh its fragility under traditional value or risk frameworks.
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟢 65
A real, well-supported case — deviating from a broad index may be justified here
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)
🟡 61
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 58
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 50
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 42
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🔴 35
Pattern consistent with a crowd delusion Mackay would flag
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)
🔴 33
Looks late-cycle — the position Marks would treat with extra caution
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)
🔴 30
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🔴 28
Cycle looks stretched toward overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 25
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 25
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 19
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 16
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 7
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
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 0
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
🔴 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?
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 (10 bullish · 1 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.
High 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
—
Operating Margin
13.4%
Net Margin
8.3%
EBITDA Margin
20.4%
ROE
20.9%
ROA
4.5%
ROIC
—
EPS
$7.91
Cash
$1.98B
Total Debt
$15.72B
Current Ratio
0.75
Debt/Equity
2.42
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
$37.48
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$86.89
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 11 positive, 9 neutral, 0 negative out of the last 20 articles.
SeekingAlpha · 20.9.2026
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 18.9.2026
Benzinga · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Zacks · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Barchart · 10.9.2026
MT Newswires · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
Business Wire · 9.9.2026
MT Newswires · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
Business Wire · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
StockStory · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
IQVIA (IQV) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 63/100, 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.
IQV currently scores 63/100 (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.
IQV's technical score is 84/100, 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: Operating margin is stable or improving over time; Return on equity (ROE): 20.9% — strong; Price is above the 50-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Current ratio: 0.75; Calmar: 0.18 (3y annualized return 8.5% / max drawdown 47.1%); Net income growth: -0.9%.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for IQV.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 15 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Berkshire James G. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 2.9.2026 | 5,381 | +5,381 | $131.82 |
| Berkshire James G. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 2.9.2026 | 5,381 | -5,381 | $131.82 |
| Berkshire James G. | Disposition to the Company | 2.9.2026 | 2,713 | -2,713 | $261.54 |
| Berkshire James G. | Open Market Sale | 2.9.2026 | 2,668 | -2,668 | $261.33 |
| STAUB W RICHARD | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 5,500 | -5,500 | $232.68 |
| STAUB W RICHARD | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 13,312 | -5,500 | $232.68 |
| Patel Bhavik | Open Market Sale | 31.7.2026 | 1,855 | -1,855 | $235.27 |
| Patel Bhavik | Open Market Sale | 31.7.2026 | 1,348 | -1,855 | $235.27 |
| BOUSBIB ARI | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 29.7.2026 | 156,206 | -156,206 | $78.21 |
| BOUSBIB ARI | Open Market Sale | 29.7.2026 | 4,465 | -4,465 | $247.10 |
| BOUSBIB ARI | Open Market Sale | 29.7.2026 | 44,039 | -44,039 | $246.08 |
| BOUSBIB ARI | Open Market Sale | 29.7.2026 | 4,584 | -4,584 | $246.85 |
| BOUSBIB ARI | Disposition to the Company | 29.7.2026 | 2,069 | -2,069 | $247.00 |
| BOUSBIB ARI | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 29.7.2026 | 156,206 | +156,206 | $78.21 |
| Sherbet Eric | Open Market Sale | 29.7.2026 | 5,000 | -5,000 | $249.16 |
| Cherofsky Keriann | Open Market Sale | 29.7.2026 | 558 | -558 | $245.21 |
| BOUSBIB ARI | Disposition to the Company | 29.7.2026 | 47,858 | -47,858 | $244.60 |
| BOUSBIB ARI | Open Market Sale | 29.7.2026 | 53,191 | -53,191 | $244.78 |
| BOUSBIB ARI | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 29.7.2026 | 992,147 | +156,206 | $78.21 |
| BOUSBIB ARI | Open Market Sale | 29.7.2026 | 983,098 | -4,584 | $246.85 |
| BOUSBIB ARI | Open Market Sale | 29.7.2026 | 987,682 | -4,465 | $247.10 |
| BOUSBIB ARI | Open Market Sale | 29.7.2026 | 939,059 | -44,039 | $246.08 |
| BOUSBIB ARI | Open Market Sale | 29.7.2026 | 885,868 | -53,191 | $244.78 |
| BOUSBIB ARI | Disposition to the Company | 29.7.2026 | 838,010 | -47,858 | $244.60 |
| BOUSBIB ARI | Disposition to the Company | 29.7.2026 | 835,941 | -2,069 | $247.00 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
3,777,349 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 4,559,177 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
47.6% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 54.8% 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