Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Staples · ·
$44.71
▲ $0.20 (+0.4%)
Market data updated: 09/20 09:10 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/20/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$43.79B
Day Range
$44.36 - $45.08
52-Week Range
$31.51 - $50.17
Beta
—
Next Earnings
05.11.2026
Support
$42.19
Resistance
$50.17
MNST is a stock from the Consumer Defensive sector — Food, beverages, and household products — steady demand even in a recession, since these are essential consumer goods.
+38.3% (1Y)
Strengths: 13/25 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
🔴 Bearish
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Net income growth
Net income growth: 26.3%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $36.92 vs. price $44.71 (-17.4%)
Fair Value
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (68/100), 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.
81/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
90/100
Analog Quality
+9.3%
Median 40D Outcome
68/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
60%
+3.5% … +7.4%
🟡 Base
7%
-0.1% … -0.1%
🔴 Bearish
33%
-7.6% … -3.4%
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, 60% (95% CI 36%–80%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of +2.9%.
Echo #1 — Oversold Reversal
1 occurrence(s) · 0% 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 | 53% (30%–75%) | +1.4% | -1.5% … +3.6% | +0.4% |
| 10D | 67% (42%–85%) | +1.7% | -3.8% … +3.2% | +0.8% |
| 20D | 60% (36%–80%) | +2.9% | -3.0% … +5.4% | +1.7% |
| 40D | 60% (36%–80%) | +9.3% | -3.6% … +13.2% | +2.4% |
| 60D | 67% (42%–85%) | +9.7% | -3.4% … +16.6% | +3.9% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-04-29 | 81/100 | Downtrend | -4.6% | -7.4% |
| 2021-10-07 | 80/100 | Downtrend | -2.5% | +7.2% |
| 2024-12-26 | 78/100 | Consolidation | -7.6% | +9.7% |
| 2021-12-08 | 78/100 | Consolidation | +7.4% | -15.7% |
| 2026-03-17 | 77/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -3.4% | +18.6% |
| 2020-10-07 | 77/100 | Consolidation | +5.0% | +15.0% |
| 2021-07-01 | 76/100 | Consolidation | +3.5% | +0.7% |
| 2022-09-13 | 76/100 | Consolidation | -0.1% | +13.1% |
| 2025-08-01 | 76/100 | Consolidation | +5.7% | +18.1% |
| 2026-05-06 | 75/100 | Consolidation | +14.7% | +21.2% |
| 2022-09-29 | 75/100 | Consolidation | +4.2% | +15.1% |
| 2024-05-15 | 75/100 | Downtrend | -10.2% | -15.4% |
| 2021-03-05 | 74/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +8.1% | +8.3% |
| 2026-04-06 | 74/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +1.4% | +31.3% |
| 2023-07-18 | 74/100 | Consolidation | +2.9% | -12.3% |
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 XLP (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
60
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
68
Quality
42
Value
38
Momentum
46
Risk
56
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
79
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING MNST...
Recent media coverage of Monster Beverage highlights its strong revenue growth—nearly 20%—and stock performance outpacing the S&P 500 over the past year. Analysts remain cautiously optimistic, though one firm slashed its price target from $108 to $54 while maintaining a "Buy" rating. The company also announced Matthew S. Burroughs as its new Chief Accounting Officer and Deputy CFO. Overall, discussions focus on its market leadership, strategic financial priorities, and investor sentiment amid mixed analyst projections.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Monster Beverage. News trend score: 100. Reason: 13 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
20
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
36
Psychology
23
Fundamentals
79
Technical
46
Valuation
38
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price (3M)
-2%
Market Narrative
68
Fundamental Reality
36
Narrative Gap
+32
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant anchoring behavior suggests traders are fixated on the 0.4% proximity to support, likely treating it as a psychological barrier. Overconfidence and euphoria scores, despite contradictory fundamentals, indicate traders may overvalue the stock relative to DCF. The narrative gap (23 points) hints at a disconnect between market perception (optimistic) and reality (undervalued fundamentals). The key question is whether traders will hold or adjust anchors if support breaks, given the muted FOMO and panic signals.
Updated: 09/08/2026, 12:55 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Monster Beverage is growing rapidly, and investors are well aware of it (Article 1)"
"analysts remain somewhat bullish about the stock’s growth prospects (Article 2)"
"Jefferies Adjusts Price Target on Monster Beverage to $54 From $108 (Article 9)"
"MNST's energy drink momentum, product innovation and global expansion support growth (Article 12)"
📈 8D 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
Walter Bagehot — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham — 25/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The methodologies here split sharply between those emphasizing resilience and cyclical positioning versus those focused on valuation, stability, or market efficiency. Walter Bagehot’s near-perfect score highlights the stock’s liquidity and credit strength, aligning with his focus on financial robustness during crises, while Samuel Armstrong Nelson and Howard Marks (Market Cycle) see it as favorably positioned within its market cycle—suggesting a bullish, momentum-driven perspective. Conversely, Benjamin Graham and Edgar Lawrence Smith dismiss it outright, with Graham’s low score reflecting its failure to meet defensive metrics like low debt and consistent earnings, while Smith’s verdict underscores its lack of long-term stability. Meanwhile, Fisher, Lynch, and the Efficient Market proponents land in the middle, either because the stock lacks exceptional quality or because its active management doesn’t justify outperformance over passive strategies. The divide underscores whether the stock’s appeal lies in its defensive or speculative traits—or whether it’s simply too ambiguous to justify a clear buy.
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 100
Strong liquidity — would likely survive a real credit squeeze
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟢 80
The kind of quiet compounder a patient holder could actually stick with
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟢 68
Reasonable capital-preservation profile
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)
🟢 66
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 62
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 59
No clear edge either way
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)
🟡 58
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 57
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 52
Solid, but not the exceptional quality Fisher looked for
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 47
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 44
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 43
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 (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 40
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
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?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 30%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🔴 34
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 25
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
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 a downtrend (3 bullish · 5 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.
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
55.8%
Operating Margin
29.2%
Net Margin
23.0%
EBITDA Margin
30.5%
ROE
23.1%
ROA
19.1%
ROIC
—
EPS
—
Cash
$2.09B
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
3.70
Debt/Equity
—
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$44.71
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$36.92
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-17.4%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
9.6%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 9.6% | $2.15B | $1.98B |
| 2 | 7.8% | $2.32B | $1.96B |
| 3 | 6.0% | $2.46B | $1.90B |
| 4 | 4.3% | $2.57B | $1.82B |
| 5 | 2.5% | $2.63B | $1.71B |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$1.97B
Terminal Value
$41.52B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$26.98B
Enterprise Value
$36.35B
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$36.35B
*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
$8.38
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$5.63
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 13 positive, 5 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 12.9.2026
Motley Fool · 12.9.2026
Yahoo · 12.9.2026
Motley Fool · 12.9.2026
Benzinga · 11.9.2026
Benzinga · 10.9.2026
Monster Beverage (MNST) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 60/100, 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.
MNST currently scores 60/100 (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, MNST's estimated fair value is $36.92, which is 17.4% below the current price of $44.71. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
MNST's technical score is 46/100, which currently reads as neutral — 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: Net income growth: 26.3%; Return on equity (ROE): 23.1% — strong; Current ratio: 3.70.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $36.92 vs. price $44.71 (-17.4%); Operating margin is eroding over time; Price is below the 50-day average.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for MNST.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 2 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gehring Rob L. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 3.9.2026 | 20,000 | +20,000 | — |
| Gehring Rob L. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 3.9.2026 | 20,000 | -20,000 | — |
| Gehring Rob L. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 3.9.2026 | 8,760 | -8,760 | $44.08 |
| Demel Ana | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.7.2026 | 243 | +243 | $95.15 |
| JACKSON JEANNE P | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.7.2026 | 302 | +302 | $95.15 |
| Hall Tiffany M. | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.7.2026 | 122 | +122 | $95.15 |
| JACKSON JEANNE P | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.7.2026 | 38,274 | +302 | $95.15 |
| Hall Tiffany M. | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.7.2026 | 16,737 | +122 | $95.15 |
| Demel Ana | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.7.2026 | 20,107 | +243 | $95.15 |
| Carling Guy | Open Market Sale | 10.6.2026 | 19,000 | -19,000 | $90.90 |
| Carling Guy | Open Market Sale | 10.6.2026 | 21,863 | -19,000 | $90.90 |
| SACKS RODNEY C | Gift | 22.5.2026 | 11,585 | -11,585 | — |
| SCHLOSBERG HILTON H | Other Transaction | 22.5.2026 | 1,151,867 | -1,151,867 | — |
| SACKS RODNEY C | Other Transaction | 22.5.2026 | 697,495 | -697,495 | — |
| SCHLOSBERG HILTON H | Gift | 22.5.2026 | 5,908 | -5,908 | — |
| SCHLOSBERG HILTON H | Other Transaction | 22.5.2026 | 1,359,681 | -1,151,867 | — |
| SCHLOSBERG HILTON H | Gift | 22.5.2026 | 1,353,773 | -5,908 | — |
| SACKS RODNEY C | Other Transaction | 22.5.2026 | 217,307 | -697,495 | — |
| SACKS RODNEY C | Gift | 22.5.2026 | 205,722 | -11,585 | — |
| DINKINS JAMES L | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 2,039 | +2,039 | — |
| Hall Tiffany M. | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 2,039 | +2,039 | — |
| JACKSON JEANNE P | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 2,039 | +2,039 | — |
| Demel Ana | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 2,039 | +2,039 | — |
| Pizula Steven G | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 2,039 | +2,039 | — |
| VIDERGAUZ MARK | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 2,039 | +2,039 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
43,851,128 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 18,354,341 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
53.0% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 48.2% 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