Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$1,392.32
▼ $18.12 (-1.3%)
Market data updated: 09/21 08:39 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/21/2026
News analyzed: 09/21/2026
Market Cap
$27.90B
Day Range
$1,385.13 - $1,409.71
52-Week Range
$1,023.05 - $1,525.17
Beta
—
Next Earnings
04.11.2026
Support
$1,216.90
Resistance
$1,474.19
MTD 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.
+8.2% (1Y)
Strengths: 15/30 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
Leverage risk
Debt/equity: -91.05
Risk
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $523.71 vs. price $1,392.32 (-62.4%)
Fair Value
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
80/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
90/100
Analog Quality
-1.0%
Median 40D Outcome
59/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
47%
+4.0% … +7.7%
🟡 Base
13%
-0.2% … +0.5%
🔴 Bearish
40%
-11.1% … -8.7%
📌 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 +0.9%.
Echo #1 — Trend Acceleration
6 occurrence(s) · 67% 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 | 47% (25%–70%) | +0.1% | -4.2% … +4.4% | +0.5% |
| 10D | 47% (25%–70%) | -1.1% | -6.9% … +4.6% | +0.8% |
| 20D | 47% (25%–70%) | +0.9% | -9.4% … +5.9% | +1.1% |
| 40D | 27% (11%–52%) | -1.0% | -8.5% … +0.6% | +2.0% |
| 60D | 33% (15%–58%) | -2.6% | -12.8% … +3.9% | +2.2% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-11-06 | 80/100 | Consolidation | -10.7% | -2.5% |
| 2024-09-25 | 76/100 | Consolidation | -7.0% | -15.1% |
| 2025-10-07 | 74/100 | Uptrend | +8.5% | +7.8% |
| 2017-12-19 | 74/100 | Consolidation | +5.0% | -3.7% |
| 2020-03-04 | 74/100 | Consolidation | -15.2% | +2.7% |
| 2026-02-23 | 73/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -11.1% | -24.6% |
| 2023-03-30 | 73/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -0.5% | -15.2% |
| 2024-05-09 | 72/100 | Consolidation | +11.5% | +7.1% |
| 2023-03-08 | 72/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +2.7% | -10.6% |
| 2023-01-09 | 72/100 | Uptrend | +7.0% | +5.0% |
| 2022-02-02 | 71/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -8.0% | -16.3% |
| 2021-12-06 | 71/100 | Uptrend | +6.9% | -8.5% |
| 2021-11-04 | 71/100 | Consolidation | +3.0% | +0.8% |
| 2026-05-06 | 70/100 | Consolidation | -11.0% | +8.9% |
| 2024-07-25 | 70/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +0.9% | -2.6% |
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
50
Quality
55
Value
38
Momentum
82
Risk
48
Sentiment
86
Fundamental
62
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING MTD...
Recent media coverage of Mettler-Toledo has focused on **analyst downgrades and valuation concerns**, with multiple firms—including Redburn, Rothschild & Co, and RBC Capital—initiating coverage with **Sell or neutral ratings** and lower price targets ($1,200–$1,460). Critics highlight a **mismatch between its premium stock valuation and slower growth** in weighing and laboratory instruments amid rising competition. Additionally, a notable **insider stock option exercise** by CEO Patrick Kaltenbach was reported, though no operational or financial surprises were highlighted.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Mettler Toledo. News trend score: 86. Reason: 7 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 1 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)
40
Psychology
47
Fundamentals
62
Technical
82
Valuation
38
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 stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own 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.
Price (3M)
+22%
Market Narrative
72
Fundamental Reality
40
Narrative Gap
+32
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
Market behavior suggests traders are overestimating MTD’s fundamentals despite weak momentum and peer underperformance. The +155% DCF premium and detached valuation metrics indicate overconfidence, while herding reflects passive alignment rather than aggressive conviction. The narrative gap (27) hints at a disconnect between perceived strength and observable performance. Key question: Will traders reassess when momentum fails to materialize?
Updated: 09/08/2026, 06:10 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Rothschild & Co initiates coverage of Mettler-Toledo International (MTD) at Sell"
"valuation outpacing growth outlook as competition intensifies"
"Patrick Kaltenbach, President and CEO, exercises options resulting in $346K"
📈 10D 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) — 17/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for MTD reflects deep methodological contrasts: Samuel Armstrong Nelson’s near-perfect score suggests the stock aligns with his cyclical, oversold-biased approach, while the lowest scorers—like Benjamin Graham and Peter Lynch—reject it outright for lacking defensive value or growth-at-a-reasonable-price traits. Meanwhile, the middle-ground thinkers (e.g., Howard Marks, Gerald Loeb) flag moderate risks, balancing caution with a nod to potential cyclical or liquidity concerns, whereas the most bearish (Jesse Livermore, Jack Schwager) dismiss it entirely as either trending against their core rules or lacking disciplined setups. The contrast underscores how technical/cyclical investors (Nelson) and fundamentalists (Graham, Lynch) often clash, while pragmatic risk managers (Marks, Loeb) sit uneasily in between.
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 58
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
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 53
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 50
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 45
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
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 40
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)
🟡 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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 33
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 28
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🔴 23
Cycle looks stretched toward overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 20
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 18
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 17
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: 40%
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 (9 bullish · 2 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.
A trading range after an advance, but still without clear (volume-based) confirmation of a distribution phase.
Low confidence
$1,216.90
Range Bottom
$1,474.19
Range Top
50
Trading Days in Range
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
59.4%
Operating Margin
—
Net Margin
21.6%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
-3677.4%
ROA
23.4%
ROIC
—
EPS
$42.17
Cash
$66.89M
Total Debt
$2.15B
Current Ratio
1.14
Debt/Equity
-91.05
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$1,392.32
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$523.71
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-62.4%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
0.9%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.9% | $856.69M | $785.96M |
| 2 | 1.3% | $868.14M | $730.70M |
| 3 | 1.7% | $883.11M | $681.92M |
| 4 | 2.1% | $901.76M | $638.83M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $924.30M | $600.73M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$848.65M
Terminal Value
$14.58B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$9.47B
Enterprise Value
$12.91B
Net Debt
$2.09B
Equity Value
$10.83B
*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
-$1.14
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$50.40
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 7 positive, 12 neutral, 1 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Benzinga · 17.9.2026
ChartMill · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
StockStory · 10.9.2026
ChartMill · 10.9.2026
MT Newswires · 9.9.2026
MT Newswires · 9.9.2026
MT Newswires · 3.9.2026
Fintel · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 2.9.2026
Investing.com · 2.9.2026
ChartMill · 2.9.2026
MT Newswires · 2.9.2026
Benzinga · 2.9.2026
Fintel · 2.9.2026
MT Newswires · 1.9.2026
Mettler Toledo (MTD) 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.
MTD 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.
Per StockIQ's DCF model, MTD's estimated fair value is $523.71, which is 62.4% below the current price of $1,392.32. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
MTD's technical score is 82/100, 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: Debt/equity: -91.05; Price is above the 50-day average; Price is above the 200-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $523.71 vs. price $1,392.32 (-62.4%); Calmar: 0.20 (3y annualized return 7.1% / max drawdown 36.6%); Return on equity (ROE): -3677.4% (negative).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for MTD.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 8 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SHUMAN-FABBRI NATALIA | Grant/Award from Employer | 28.8.2026 | 16 | +16 | — |
| Kaltenbach Patrick | Open Market Sale | 27.8.2026 | 4,480 | -942 | $1,425.00 |
| Kaltenbach Patrick | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 27.8.2026 | 5,422 | +942 | $1,024.55 |
| Kaltenbach Patrick | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 27.8.2026 | 4,413 | -942 | — |
| Kaltenbach Patrick | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 27.8.2026 | 942 | +942 | $1,024.55 |
| Kaltenbach Patrick | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 27.8.2026 | 942 | -942 | — |
| Kaltenbach Patrick | Open Market Sale | 27.8.2026 | 942 | -942 | $1,425.00 |
| SALICE THOMAS P | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 5.8.2026 | 417 | -417 | — |
| SALICE THOMAS P | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 5.8.2026 | 417 | +417 | $397.95 |
| SALICE THOMAS P | Open Market Sale | 5.8.2026 | 417 | -417 | $1,440.41 |
| SALICE THOMAS P | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 415 | -415 | $1,444.62 |
| Keller Gerry | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 3.8.2026 | 240 | -240 | — |
| SALICE THOMAS P | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 3.8.2026 | 415 | -415 | — |
| Keller Gerry | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 240 | -240 | $1,427.14 |
| Vadala Shawn | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 3.8.2026 | 2,240 | +2,240 | $595.31 |
| Vadala Shawn | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 2,240 | -2,240 | $1,432.00 |
| Keller Gerry | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 3.8.2026 | 240 | +240 | $720.81 |
| SALICE THOMAS P | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 3.8.2026 | 415 | +415 | $397.95 |
| Vadala Shawn | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 3.8.2026 | 2,240 | -2,240 | — |
| Vadala Shawn | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 3.8.2026 | 7,819 | +2,240 | $595.31 |
| Vadala Shawn | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 5,579 | -2,240 | $1,432.00 |
| Vadala Shawn | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 3.8.2026 | 0 | -2,240 | — |
| Keller Gerry | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 3.8.2026 | 499 | +240 | $720.81 |
| Keller Gerry | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 259 | -240 | $1,427.14 |
| Keller Gerry | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 3.8.2026 | 235 | -240 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
634,397 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 787,693 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
55.6% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 46.2% 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