Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$269.99
▼ $0.23 (-0.1%)
Market data updated: 09/20 05:53 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$650.65B
Day Range
$267.20 - $272.09
52-Week Range
$174.12 - $281.07
Beta
—
Next Earnings
13.10.2026
Support
$245.49
Resistance
$281.07
JNJ 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.
+55.0% (1Y)
Strengths: 13/30 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
Earnings per share (EPS) growth
Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 90.5%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $123.31 vs. price $269.99 (-54.3%)
Fair Value
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (62/100), but fair-value analysis scores this stock as relatively expensive (38/100) — the growth story and the current price aren't fully aligned.
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
80/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
90/100
Analog Quality
-0.7%
Median 40D Outcome
59/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
27%
+7.3% … +8.5%
🟡 Base
13%
-0.5% … -0.1%
🔴 Bearish
60%
-11.2% … -3.9%
Typical timeframe (based on real historical rates clearing a 60% bar): 10 trading days.
📌 Bottom line: Out of 15 similar historical cases for this stock, 27% (95% CI 11%–52%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of -3.7%.
Echo #1 — Trend Acceleration
11 occurrence(s) · 27% historical success
Echo #2 — Momentum Breakout
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 | 33% (15%–58%) | -0.7% | -2.6% … +2.5% | +0.2% |
| 10D | 27% (11%–52%) | -1.7% | -5.2% … +1.4% | +0.3% |
| 20D | 27% (11%–52%) | -3.7% | -6.9% … +3.4% | +0.6% |
| 40D | 40% (20%–64%) | -0.7% | -4.3% … +4.1% | +1.1% |
| 60D | 40% (20%–64%) | -0.1% | -4.9% … +6.3% | +2.3% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-12-10 | 80/100 | Uptrend | -11.2% | -5.0% |
| 2026-03-25 | 80/100 | Consolidation | -3.9% | -3.6% |
| 2025-03-27 | 79/100 | Uptrend | -5.2% | -6.7% |
| 2021-02-12 | 78/100 | Uptrend | -3.7% | +1.4% |
| 2022-05-31 | 77/100 | Consolidation | -1.4% | -6.9% |
| 2020-12-23 | 77/100 | Uptrend | +9.2% | +5.5% |
| 2020-09-18 | 77/100 | Consolidation | -0.7% | -0.1% |
| 2020-02-21 | 77/100 | Consolidation | -20.0% | +0.4% |
| 2018-11-23 | 77/100 | Consolidation | -13.6% | -4.0% |
| 2026-04-14 | 76/100 | Consolidation | -6.6% | +7.0% |
| 2017-11-09 | 76/100 | Uptrend | +0.2% | -6.4% |
| 2025-12-24 | 75/100 | Uptrend | +6.6% | +13.2% |
| 2025-09-25 | 74/100 | Uptrend | +8.3% | +16.1% |
| 2025-03-12 | 73/100 | Uptrend | -7.3% | -4.8% |
| 2026-06-24 | 72/100 | ✓ Uptrend | +7.6% | +12.0% |
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
61
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.
🕰️ StockIQ Time Machine
What did StockIQ know — and when? Pick a date from the real accumulated history.
As of August 26, 2026
Then
69
$273.14
Now
61
$269.99
What happened since
Signals detected by this date
No signals detected by this date
🧬 STOCK DNA
This stock's profile across 8 real dimensions — a research tool, not a recommendation
Growth
62
Quality
50
Value
38
Momentum
61
Risk
58
Sentiment
80
Fundamental
75
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING JNJ...
Recent media coverage of Johnson & Johnson has primarily focused on its stock performance amid broader market fluctuations, with analysts noting a sharper decline than the overall market. The company’s **J&J Snack Foods division** is undergoing restructuring, including cost-cutting measures and winding down legacy operations to address rising operational costs like freight and fuel. Some commentators, like Jim Cramer, have suggested buying the dip, though others highlight concerns about revenue concentration in key areas. No major new product launches or major legal developments were reported.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Johnson & Johnson. News trend score: 80. Reason: 8 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
31
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
38
Psychology
47
Fundamentals
75
Technical
61
Valuation
38
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.
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.
Price (3M)
+18%
Market Narrative
68
Fundamental Reality
38
Narrative Gap
+30
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
JNJ’s dominant *herding* behavior reflects a market-wide pullback, with its decline nearly matching peer movements. While euphoria and overconfidence scores remain elevated—due to strong sentiment and valuation gaps—they’re tempered by modest momentum and neutral RSI. The narrative gap (76 vs. 38) hints at a disconnect where optimism outpaces tangible fundamentals. The key question: will traders double down on the stock’s relative strength or exit as peers lag further? The absence of panic or FOMO suggests caution, not panic, underpins the move.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 09:08 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Between winding down some legacy operations, executing major cost-cutting initiatives and navigating skyrocketing freight and fuel costs, J&J Snack Foods is going through something of a transition year."
"Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) Sees a More Significant Dip Than Broader Market"
"J&J Snack Foods CEO sees a leaner business set up to return to growth"
📈 17D 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 — 84/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor) — 7/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for JNJ reflects deep methodological differences in how these investors evaluate stocks. Peter Lynch and Thorstein Veblen both see strong growth potential—Lynch highlights undervaluation relative to earnings momentum, while Veblen aligns JNJ’s performance with tangible value creation. Meanwhile, cycle-focused strategists like Samuel Armstrong Nelson and Edgar Lawrence Smith lean bullish, emphasizing oversold conditions and long-term hold potential. In contrast, risk-averse or market-skeptical frameworks—such as Benjamin Graham’s defensive criteria, Walter Bagehot’s liquidity concerns, or Howard Marks’ late-cycle caution—dismiss JNJ outright, flagging valuation, risk, or structural market risks. Even moderate approaches like Morgan Housel or Gerald Loeb acknowledge some merit but temper enthusiasm with warnings about effort or risk, while Fisher, Schwager, and the efficient-market camp dismiss it entirely for lacking signature traits or failing to justify active selection over passive strategies.
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 84
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟢 70
Growth appears aligned with real value creation
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 66
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 54
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
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)
🟡 54
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 52
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 51
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 45
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 44
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)
🟡 42
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 40
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 36
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 26
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 26
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 12
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
🔴 7
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 (5 bullish · 3 bearish · 3 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
68.0%
Operating Margin
34.6%
Net Margin
28.5%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
32.9%
ROA
13.5%
ROIC
—
EPS
$11.13
Cash
$19.71B
Total Debt
$41.44B
Current Ratio
1.03
Debt/Equity
0.59
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 25.8.2026 | $1.340 |
| 26.5.2026 | $1.340 |
| 25.5.2026 | $1.340 |
| 24.2.2026 | $1.300 |
| 23.2.2026 | $1.300 |
| 25.11.2025 | $1.300 |
| 24.11.2025 | $1.300 |
| 26.8.2025 | $1.300 |
| 25.8.2025 | $1.300 |
| 27.5.2025 | $1.300 |
| 26.5.2025 | $1.300 |
| 18.2.2025 | $1.240 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$269.99
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$123.31
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-54.3%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
4.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 4.0% | $20.48B | $18.79B |
| 2 | 3.6% | $21.22B | $17.86B |
| 3 | 3.2% | $21.91B | $16.92B |
| 4 | 2.9% | $22.54B | $15.97B |
| 5 | 2.5% | $23.10B | $15.01B |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$19.70B
Terminal Value
$364.28B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$236.75B
Enterprise Value
$321.30B
Net Debt
$21.73B
Equity Value
$299.57B
*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
$33.86
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$12.93
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 8 positive, 9 neutral, 3 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
ChartMill · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
ChartMill · 18.9.2026
Benzinga · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 18.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 18.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 61/100, 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.
JNJ currently scores 61/100 (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, JNJ's estimated fair value is $123.31, which is 54.3% below the current price of $269.99. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
JNJ's technical score is 61/100, 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: Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 90.5%; Net income growth: 90.6%; ATR: 1.9% of price.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $123.31 vs. price $269.99 (-54.3%); Free cash flow growth: -0.7%; MACD histogram is negative — falling momentum.
Yes — JNJ 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Woods Eugene A. | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.9.2026 | 135.717 | +135.717 | $276.31 |
| HEWSON MARILLYN A | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.9.2026 | 180.956 | +180.956 | $276.31 |
| Pinto Daniel E | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.9.2026 | 113.098 | +113.098 | $276.31 |
| Schmid Timothy | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 2.9.2026 | 11,070 | -11,070 | — |
| Schmid Timothy | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 2.9.2026 | 11,070 | +11,070 | $131.94 |
| Schmid Timothy | Open Market Sale | 2.9.2026 | 22,527 | -22,527 | $274.74 |
| Schmid Timothy | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 2.9.2026 | 22,527 | -22,527 | — |
| Schmid Timothy | Open Market Sale | 2.9.2026 | 11,070 | -11,070 | $274.74 |
| Schmid Timothy | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 2.9.2026 | 22,527 | +22,527 | $151.41 |
| Taubert Jennifer L | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 17.8.2026 | 15,000 | -15,000 | — |
| Taubert Jennifer L | Open Market Sale | 17.8.2026 | 15,000 | -15,000 | $263.36 |
| Taubert Jennifer L | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 17.8.2026 | 15,000 | +15,000 | $115.67 |
| Duato Joaquin | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 13.8.2026 | 123,291 | -123,291 | — |
| Duato Joaquin | Open Market Sale | 13.8.2026 | 20,976 | -20,976 | $262.00 |
| Duato Joaquin | Open Market Sale | 13.8.2026 | 102,315 | -102,315 | $261.00 |
| Duato Joaquin | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 13.8.2026 | 123,291 | +123,291 | $115.67 |
| Duato Joaquin | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 13.8.2026 | 399,258 | +123,291 | $115.67 |
| Duato Joaquin | Open Market Sale | 13.8.2026 | 275,967 | -102,315 | $261.00 |
| Duato Joaquin | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 13.8.2026 | 0 | -123,291 | — |
| Duato Joaquin | Open Market Sale | 13.8.2026 | 378,282 | -20,976 | $262.00 |
| Forminard Elizabeth | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 6.8.2026 | 9,344 | -9,344 | — |
| Forminard Elizabeth | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 6.8.2026 | 9,344 | +9,344 | $131.94 |
| Forminard Elizabeth | Open Market Sale | 6.8.2026 | 9,344 | -9,344 | $257.76 |
| Forminard Elizabeth | Open Market Sale | 6.8.2026 | 6,574 | -6,574 | $255.93 |
| Forminard Elizabeth | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 6.8.2026 | 32,912 | +9,344 | $131.94 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
21,670,595 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 25,408,119 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
55.0% 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