Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Technology · ·
$17.88
▲ $0.79 (+4.6%)
Market data updated: 09/25 11:37 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/25/2026
News analyzed: 09/25/2026
Market Cap
$435.38M
Day Range
$16.37 - $17.97
52-Week Range
$7.35 - $51.50
Beta
—
Next Earnings
03.11.2026
Support
$12.87
Resistance
$20.15
MRAM is a stock from the Technology sector — Software, hardware, chip, and computing-services companies — revenue tied to the pace of innovation and upgrade cycles.
+113.6% (1Y)
Strengths: 15/32 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
Operating margin stability
Operating margin is stable or improving over time
Quality
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $3.87 vs. price $17.88 (-78.4%)
Fair Value
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
56
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
34
Quality
63
Value
38
Momentum
75
Risk
46
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
39
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 Everspin Technologies has primarily focused on its strategic partnerships and expansion in MRAM (Magnetoresistive Random Access Memory) technology, particularly for aerospace and defense applications. The company has partnered with Teledyne HiRel Semiconductors to accelerate MRAM adoption in these sectors, while also targeting revenue growth through high-density MRAM and foundry initiatives, aiming for $100 million in revenue by 2029. Analysts highlight its strong margins and potential for new use cases.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Everspin Technologies, Inc.. 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
42
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
42
Psychology
60
Fundamentals
39
Technical
75
Valuation
38
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.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Price (3M)
-18%
Market Narrative
87
Fundamental Reality
42
Narrative Gap
+45
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
MRAM’s extreme loss aversion (92) dominates, reflecting deep price pain (-30.8% over three months) and cautious volume. The narrative-reality gap (28) hints at optimistic expectations clashing with weak technicals, while overconfidence (45) and euphoria (35) are muted by negative momentum and RSI neutrality. The key tension lies in whether sentiment (100/100) can sustain buying despite lagging fundamentals and peer underperformance. A break below key support or earnings warning could shift the balance.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 07:10 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Everspin and Teledyne HiRel Partner to Offer MRAM for Aerospace and Defense Applications"
"Everspin Technologies Working With Teledyne Unit to Drive MRAM Adoption"
"Everspin Tech Targets $100M Revenue by 2029 With MRAM Expansion, Foundry Push"
"Everspin Tech Targets NOR Flash, Data Center Growth With High-Density MRAM"
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — 12/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Based on his documented principles, the model estimates Walter Bagehot would view MRAM favorably with a top score due to its strong liquidity and balance sheet strength during a credit squeeze, while market cycle strategies like Samuel Armstrong Nelson's find its current cycle positioning moderately appealing. Conversely, classic value and growth methodologies show substantial skepticism, as Benjamin Graham's models flag a lack of margin of safety and Peter Lynch's framework finds it fails the growth-at-a-reasonable-price threshold. Trend-following and quality-focused approaches like those of Jesse Livermore and Philip Fisher also reject the company due to negative momentum and missing qualitative growth signatures. Ultimately, while liquidity metrics provide a bright spot, the majority of fundamental and technical models express significant caution.
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 59
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 59
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
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 47
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
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 44
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)
🟡 41
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)
🟡 40
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 40
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
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 35
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 31
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 24
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
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🔴 12
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 (8 bullish · 2 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 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
51.2%
Operating Margin
-11.8%
Net Margin
-1.1%
EBITDA Margin
-6.0%
ROE
-0.9%
ROA
-0.7%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$0.03
Cash
$44.45M
Total Debt
$1.78M
Current Ratio
4.84
Debt/Equity
0.03
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$17.88
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$3.87
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-78.4%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
-1.7%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | -1.7% | $3.07M | $2.82M |
| 2 | -0.7% | $3.05M | $2.57M |
| 3 | 0.4% | $3.06M | $2.36M |
| 4 | 1.4% | $3.10M | $2.20M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $3.18M | $2.07M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$3.12M
Terminal Value
$50.18M
Present Value of Terminal Value
$32.62M
Enterprise Value
$44.63M
Net Debt
$-42.67M
Equity Value
$87.29M
*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
$3.05
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$2.98
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 13 positive, 5 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Benzinga · 21.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Benzinga · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 5.9.2026
Simply Wall St. · 5.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 5.9.2026
Yahoo · 2.9.2026
InvestorsHub · 2.9.2026
MT Newswires · 2.9.2026
Yahoo · 2.9.2026
Business Wire · 2.9.2026
Benzinga · 25.8.2026
MarketBeat · 19.8.2026
Benzinga · 18.8.2026
Business Wire · 17.8.2026
MarketBeat · 15.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 14.8.2026
Benzinga · 13.8.2026
Everspin Technologies, Inc. (MRAM) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 56/100, 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.
MRAM currently scores 56/100 (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, MRAM's estimated fair value is $3.87, which is 78.4% below the current price of $17.88. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
MRAM's technical score is 75/100, 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; Debt/equity: 0.03; Current ratio: 4.84.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $3.87 vs. price $17.88 (-78.4%); Operating margin: -11.8% (negative); Net margin: -1.1% (negative).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for MRAM.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Choudhary Vikas | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.8.2026 | 15,693 | +15,693 | — |
| Choudhary Vikas | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.8.2026 | 15,693 | +15,693 | — |
| FINCH LAWRENCE G | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.8.2026 | 1,089 | +1,089 | — |
| Cooper William Earl | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.8.2026 | 8,610 | +8,610 | — |
| Dougherty Sean Michael | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.8.2026 | 8,610 | +8,610 | — |
| FINCH LAWRENCE G | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.8.2026 | 173,484 | +1,089 | — |
| Cooper William Earl | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.8.2026 | 157,741 | +8,610 | — |
| Dougherty Sean Michael | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.8.2026 | 107,719 | +8,610 | — |
| Dougherty Sean Michael | Open Market Sale | 6.7.2026 | 99,109 | -422 | $19.65 |
| Cooper William Earl | Open Market Sale | 6.7.2026 | 149,131 | -1,821 | $19.65 |
| Aggarwal Sanjeev | Open Market Sale | 6.7.2026 | 833,199 | -36,289 | $19.65 |
| Cooper William Earl | Open Market Sale | 1.7.2026 | 1,549 | -1,549 | $22.34 |
| Dougherty Sean Michael | Open Market Sale | 1.7.2026 | 358 | -358 | $22.34 |
| Aggarwal Sanjeev | Open Market Sale | 1.7.2026 | 30,885 | -30,885 | $22.34 |
| Cooper William Earl | Open Market Sale | 1.7.2026 | 149,481 | -1,549 | $22.34 |
| Aggarwal Sanjeev | Open Market Sale | 1.7.2026 | 839,561 | -30,885 | $22.34 |
| Dougherty Sean Michael | Open Market Sale | 1.7.2026 | 99,173 | -358 | $22.34 |
| FINCH LAWRENCE G | Open Market Sale | 29.5.2026 | 400 | -400 | $27.03 |
| FINCH LAWRENCE G | Open Market Sale | 29.5.2026 | 267,730 | -267,730 | $26.40 |
| FINCH LAWRENCE G | Open Market Sale | 29.5.2026 | 172,795 | -267,730 | $26.40 |
| FINCH LAWRENCE G | Open Market Sale | 29.5.2026 | 172,395 | -400 | $27.03 |
| Long Tara | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 3,852 | +3,852 | — |
| FINCH LAWRENCE G | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 3,852 | +3,852 | — |
| RIBAR GEOFFREY G | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 3,852 | +3,852 | — |
| Billerbeck Darin G | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 3,852 | +3,852 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
3,686,639 shares short as of 2026-09-15 · vs. 3,917,972 on 2026-08-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
52.9% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 61.2% 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